John Mann

The appellant pleaded guilty to nine counts of theft related to his role as the mastermind of a scheme where younger individuals stole motor boats and construction equipment valued at approximately $65,000.

He appealed his sentence of imprisonment, arguing the sentencing judge failed to adequately explain why a conditional sentence was not warranted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was within the appropriate range and the sentencing judge gave cogent reasons emphasizing denunciation for the planned and well-developed scheme.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault.

At trial, the Crown introduced highly prejudicial statements the appellant made to a probation officer during a pre-sentence report interview following a guilty plea that was later withdrawn.

The trial judge also permitted the complainant's mother to testify about prior consistent statements and instructed the jury they could be used to support the complainant's credibility, despite no allegation of recent fabrication.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the admission of the probation officer's evidence rendered the trial unfair and the jury instructions regarding the mother's evidence were erroneous.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for mischief, arguing the case involved his fundamental right to communicate with elected officials.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary conviction appeal judge's decision, finding that the appellant crossed the line by wilfully interfering with the lawful use and operation of his MPP's fax machine, thereby interfering with other citizens' rights to communicate.

The trial judge's finding that the appellant acted out of anger and frustration, rather than a desire to communicate, was supported by evidence.