John K. Lefurgey

The Crown appealed the sentences imposed on two youthful offenders who pled guilty to a home invasion robbery.

One respondent received two years less a day and the other received 21 months, both followed by three years' probation.

The trial judge emphasized the respondents' significant rehabilitative progress while on strict bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the sentences were lenient, the trial judge made no error in principle and the sentences were not manifestly unfit given the strong prospects for rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a serious assault where he acted in concert with a co-accused to beat the victim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's instructions on self-defence or prior inconsistent statements, nor in the refusal to adjourn the trial.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in principle by refusing a conditional sentence or in the term of imprisonment imposed.

The appellant was convicted of incest and indecent assault following a jury trial.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting prior consistent statements without a limiting instruction, allowing witness statements as exhibits, and charging the jury on the wrong offence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made serious errors regarding the prior consistent statements and exhibits.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment signed by the Registrar.

The Court of Appeal found that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to sign the default judgment under Rule 19.04 because the claim for 'approximately $450,000' in damages for conversion and fraud was not a liquidated demand.

The default judgment was set aside with leave for the respondent to proceed before a judge under Rule 19.05.

However, the court refused to set aside the noting of pleadings closed due to the appellant's intentional refusal to defend.

The appellant appealed a jury conviction for attempted murder arising from a shooting in which the complainant survived a gunshot wound to the head.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge’s instructions on accidental discharge and intent were confusing, legally flawed, and improperly focused on capacity when capacity was not in issue.

The court further found that the absence of a sharp limiting instruction on highly prejudicial bad character evidence, including drug use, trafficking, gang affiliation, and illegal handgun possession, undermined trial fairness.

The court also noted improper Crown submissions inviting speculation on motive and planning.

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