John A. Neander

The appellant was convicted of impaired operation of a motor vehicle after causing a four-vehicle accident.

He testified that he was not impaired while driving but consumed a large amount of alcohol immediately after the accident (bolus drinking).

The trial judge disbelieved the appellant, relying on toxicological evidence based on a seven-ounce consumption scenario, but ignored evidence based on a ten-ounce scenario that could have supported the appellant's claim.

The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the appeal, finding the error immaterial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial, holding that the failure to consider the ten-ounce toxicology evidence was a material misapprehension of evidence relevant to the appellant's credibility.

The appellant was convicted of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm after a handgun was found in a closet in an apartment where he was staying.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in her jury instructions regarding constructive possession and wilful blindness.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The court found the trial judge erroneously instructed the jury that they could convict if the appellant 'ought to have known' about the gun, and improperly left wilful blindness as a basis for liability without also requiring proof of control over the weapon.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault following a jury trial.

The conviction rested primarily on the competing credibility of the appellant and the complainant regarding whether sexual activity on a boat was consensual.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the jury instructions on reasonable doubt and expert evidence, and sought to introduce fresh evidence from his son, who was present on the boat but did not testify at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the grounds relating to jury instructions but admitted the fresh evidence.

The Court found the son's evidence was sufficiently cogent to potentially affect the verdict and accepted the appellant's explanation that he did not call his son at trial to protect him from the stress of testifying amid high-conflict family proceedings.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his sentence for setting fire to a police cruiser during the G20 riots.

The Court of Appeal upheld the custodial sentence, finding that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount and the trial judge adequately considered the appellant's personal circumstances.

However, the Court struck out the restitution order because the trial judge failed to inquire into the appellant's ability to pay, noting his addiction and sporadic employment.

The Crown sought certiorari with mandamus in aid to quash a preliminary inquiry judge’s order discharging a young person charged in connection with a fatal shooting.

The application judge found that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the circumstantial evidence and by assuming the trier of fact must accept or reject a witness’s evidence in its entirety.

The evidence, including the respondent’s actions in pursuing the victim and tripping him immediately before the shooting, was capable of supporting an inference that the respondent aided the principal offender with the requisite mens rea for murder.

The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to commit the respondent to trial for first degree murder.

The discharge was quashed and the matter remitted to the preliminary inquiry judge with a direction to order committal for trial.

The accused was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police and was found carrying a loaded prohibited handgun.

He was acquitted at trial of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm on the basis that he lacked the requisite mens rea, as he did not know the barrel was shorter than 105 millimetres.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the mens rea under s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code only requires the offender to know they are in possession of a loaded firearm, regardless of whether it is prohibited or restricted.

The Court also declined to stay the proceedings despite a nearly three-year delay by the Crown in perfecting the appeal, finding no actual prejudice.

The accused was found in possession of a loaded prohibited handgun during a traffic stop.

At trial, he was acquitted of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm under s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code because the trial judge found he lacked the requisite mens rea, specifically knowledge that the barrel length was under 105 mm.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the mens rea for s. 95(1) only requires knowledge that the accused is in possession of a loaded firearm, not knowledge of the specific characteristics that make it prohibited or restricted.

The Court also declined to stay the proceedings despite a three-year delay by the Crown in perfecting the appeal, finding no abuse of process.

A conviction was entered.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of sexually assaulting his nine-year-old stepdaughter and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable due to inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and that the trial judge erred in responding to a jury question by replaying a video interview without reading back contradictory cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury was entitled to believe the core of the complainant's evidence and that the trial judge's handling of the jury question was appropriate, especially absent a defence request for a readback.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the three-year term was entirely fit.

The appellant was convicted of careless driving and failing to report a snowmobile accident under the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act.

He appealed, arguing that the justice of the peace failed to consider his due diligence defence—specifically, his mistaken belief that he was uninjured and that the snowmobile damage was minor—and failed to provide sufficient reasons under the Sheppard standard.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the lower courts ignored the appellant's evidence regarding his condition, the apparent damage, and the trail conditions.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant was convicted of assault and sexual assault against his spouse and sentenced to a total of two years' imprisonment.

He appealed the convictions, arguing the trial judge provided inadequate reasons for credibility findings and misapplied the W.(D.) principles.

He also appealed the sentence, seeking a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons adequate and her application of W.(D.) correct.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the overriding principles of denunciation and deterrence for serious domestic violence militated against a conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding intent and an admission allegedly made to his girlfriend, and by mistakenly referring to voir dire evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge effectively gave a 'rolled up' charge on intent, properly instructed the jury on the admission, and that the mistaken reference to voir dire evidence did not create a serious risk of misleading the jury or undermine the verdicts.