John J. Navarrete

The appellant appealed his conviction for a historical sexual assault that occurred in 1991.

He argued that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge fairly assessed the credibility of the witnesses using the W.(D.) framework and that there was a clear evidentiary basis for the conviction.

The appellant appealed convictions for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay and in finding that breath samples were taken “as soon as practicable” under s. 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the allocation of delay, including institutional delay, defence-caused adjournments, and delays arising from disclosure issues related to a police officer’s Drug Recognition Expert training.

The court concluded the trial judge did not err in characterizing the delay or in determining that the overall delay fell within the Morin guidelines.

The court also held that the police acted reasonably in obtaining breath samples approximately 1 hour and 37 minutes after arrest and that the trial judge properly inferred that the delay was explained by operational circumstances at the police station.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay.

The appellant also argued that the trial judge’s “unorthodox” approach to hearing the application created a reasonable apprehension of bias because the judge outlined his preliminary views after reviewing the written materials before hearing full submissions.

The appeal court held that the trial judge’s conduct reflected preparation rather than predisposition and that counsel had a full opportunity to make submissions.

The court further found no error in the trial judge’s attribution of delay or assessment of prejudice.

The conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the summary conviction appeal judge, which upheld his conviction.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeal did not raise a question of law of general significance to the administration of justice, nor did the trial judge commit any clear error of law.

The appellant, charged with first degree murder, sought a review of a detention order under s. 680 of the Criminal Code.

The bail judge had ordered detention based solely on the tertiary ground under s. 515(10)(c).

The Court of Appeal found that the bail judge overstated the strength of the Crown's case and failed to properly apply the principles from R. v. Hall.

The Court concluded that the appellant's continued detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, set aside the detention order, and granted bail.