Jonathan Bliss

The appellant was convicted of assault and break and enter to commit assault arising from a home invasion.

She was sentenced to two years less a day imprisonment followed by two years of probation.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge erred by not imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly concluded a conditional sentence was unfit given the seriousness of the offence, the appellant's role as a principal, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant was convicted of knowingly violating a condition of his Long Term Supervision Order prohibiting him from viewing pornography, after being caught watching a pornographic program at his half-way house.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by fast-forwarding through parts of the DVD and by applying an objective standard of mens rea.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the context of the program and correctly found the appellant had subjective knowledge that he was watching pornography.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after pushing a taxi cab driver on December 31, 2012, causing the driver to fall and fracture his leg.

The Crown sought six months custody followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of six to eight months followed by probation.

The court imposed a sentence of four months in custody followed by probation, finding that a conditional sentence was not appropriate given the vulnerability of the victim, the seriousness of the injuries, and the accused's prior assault conviction.

The court also ordered restitution of $2,000.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction decision finding him not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for assault and uttering threats after spitting on and threatening a bus driver.

The trial judge had accepted psychiatric evidence diagnosing schizophrenia and concluding that delusional beliefs rendered the appellant incapable of knowing his actions were wrong under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

On appeal, the appellant argued the NCR finding was unreasonable because the expert did not explicitly ask whether he knew his actions were wrong and because he testified that he did.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge reasonably relied on the psychiatric evidence and the appellant’s disorganized testimony to conclude that his delusions prevented him from knowing his actions were morally wrong.

The evidentiary record supported the NCR finding on a balance of probabilities.

The young person appealed their conviction for robbery, arguing the trial judge erred in relying on a witness's prior statement to police identifying them as a participant, and in giving weight to the fact that they absconded during the trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to conclude the witness had generally adopted the truth of the police statement, and there was no error in considering the absconding.