Joseph Hanna

The appellant appealed his conviction and six-month sentence for accessing child pornography.

He argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his section 8 Charter challenge regarding the search warrant, claiming the information was stale and the warrant overbroad.

He also argued the verdict was unreasonable and that the Crown failed to prove jurisdiction.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's inferences were reasonable and the verdict was supported by the circumstantial evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the six-month sentence was not manifestly unfit and the trial judge properly considered mitigating and aggravating factors.

The appellant, Elijah McGibbon, appealed a one-year custodial sentence for assault causing bodily harm.

The appeal was based on three grounds: improper admission of a victim impact statement, error in applying the Proulx analysis for a conditional sentence, and an unfit sentence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge did not err in considering the victim impact statement, properly weighed sentencing principles including rehabilitation and deterrence, and imposed a fit sentence given the gravity of the offence.

The appellant, Can Imer, appealed his conviction for "80 and over" (driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood).

The appeal raised three grounds related to alleged breaches of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel: failure to immediately ask if he wished to contact counsel, insufficient efforts by police to contact his counsel of choice, and being "funneled" to duty counsel.

The court found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the s. 10(b) rights were not breached, distinguishing the facts from cases where breaches were found due to police steering or insufficient efforts.

In the alternative, the court held that even if a breach occurred, the evidence (breath samples) would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, given the moderate seriousness of any misconduct, low impact on the accused's rights, and society's vital interest in combatting drinking and driving.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial on a charge of sexual assault, the court found the accused guilty under s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was the complainant’s credibility in the face of numerous inconsistencies concerning sequencing, details of the sexual acts, and post-incident reporting.

The court held those inconsistencies did not raise a reasonable doubt when assessed against the totality of the evidence, including forensic blood and ejaculate evidence, documented physical injuries, and evidence of the complainant’s post-offence demeanour.

The reasons expressly cautioned against impermissible stereotypical reasoning about how victims of sexual assault are expected to behave.

A publication ban under s. 486.4 applied.

The defendant, Roberto Suarez Flores, was charged with four counts of assault involving his estranged wife and their two sons.

The court assessed the credibility of all witnesses, noting the particular considerations for young witnesses.

While the court found reasonable doubt regarding the assault charge involving the wife due to conflicting accounts and a potentially coercive message from the wife's nephew, it found the defendant guilty of the three assault charges involving his sons.

These included assaults with a snow brush, a speaker wire, and a haircut tool, with the court accepting the sons' consistent and credible testimony despite minor inconsistencies.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on drug and firearm charges following a trial judge's finding that police violated the accused's s. 8 Charter right by obtaining a search warrant based on insufficient information, and the subsequent exclusion of evidence.

A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown appeal, affirming the acquittals.

The Supreme Court of Canada, by majority, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, adopting the dissenting reasons of the Court of Appeal judge who found there was no breach of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellant appealed convictions on 14 counts arising from three separate incidents: a June 2013 driving incident involving dangerous driving, criminal harassment, and intimidation; a June 2013 arrest incident involving dangerous driving and escaping lawful custody; and various incidents involving neighbours and school-related matters.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility assessments, arguing insufficient reasons, uneven scrutiny of evidence, and misapplication of the W.D. test.

The Court of Appeal upheld all convictions, finding the trial judge's reasons were detailed and thorough, credibility findings were properly grounded, and no reversible errors occurred.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on drug and firearms charges.

The trial judge found that police violated the respondent's Charter rights under section 8 by obtaining a search warrant based on stale information.

The warrant was issued on February 26, 2016, to search the respondent's vehicle for cocaine and related items, based on information that the respondent had allegedly delivered drugs to a target of investigation on February 3, 2016, and possibly on December 18, 2015.

The trial judge concluded that the 23-day delay between the last alleged transaction and the warrant execution rendered the information insufficient to establish reasonable grounds to believe evidence would be found in the vehicle.

The trial judge excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal (majority) dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's analysis of the staleness of the information or the application of the section 24(2) factors.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual exploitation by a Superior Court judge and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment concurrent on both counts, plus two years' probation, a lifetime weapons prohibition, a lifetime SOIRA order, and a DNA order.

The appellant appealed the convictions on four grounds: uneven scrutiny of witness credibility, improper application of the rule in Browne v. Dunn, failure to address the Crown's failure to call certain witnesses, and improper admission of similar fact evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the convictions.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to stop at the scene of an accident, as well as a stayed charge of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

The charges arose from the appellant's deliberate use of his vehicle to dislodge a person hanging from the passenger side door.

The Court of Appeal upheld all convictions, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility, his inferences regarding vehicle speed and the appellant's knowledge of running over the victim, or his rejection of necessity and self-defence arguments.

The court also upheld the sentencing decision regarding the driving suspension.

The accused was charged with four counts of robbery and one count of attempted robbery, involving banks, a convenience store, and a home invasion.

The Crown alleged the accused acted as the getaway driver using his red Dodge Charger.

The court found the accused guilty of the convenience store robbery based on police surveillance.

Relying on a co-accused's prior statements to police and similar fact evidence, the court found the accused guilty of the bank robberies.

However, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove the accused's involvement in the home invasion, resulting in an acquittal on that count.

During a trial for multiple robberies, the Crown applied to admit the out-of-court statements of two witnesses for their truth.

One witness, an independent observer, had lost his memory of the events by the time of trial.

The other witness, a co-perpetrator, recanted his videotaped police statement implicating the accused, alleging police misconduct.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay and the KGB framework, finding both statements met the requirements of necessity and threshold reliability.

The application was granted, and both statements were admitted as substantive evidence.

The accused was convicted after trial of unlawful possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of a firearm while subject to a prohibition order under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court considered aggravating factors including possession of a loaded handgun in public while under a prohibition order and while partially impaired by alcohol and marijuana, as well as the accused’s youth record.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, lack of an adult criminal record, strong family and community support, employment prospects, and potential for rehabilitation.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes while recognizing rehabilitation prospects, the court imposed a total sentence of three and a half years.

Enhanced credit of 1.5:1 was granted for pre‑sentence custody, resulting in credit of 29 months.

The accused applied to exclude a loaded firearm seized by police, arguing his rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter were violated.

The court previously found that the accused was arbitrarily detained at gunpoint for a split second and that a subsequent search of his residence was unreasonable.

Applying the section 24(2) framework, the court found the police conduct was not deliberate or in bad faith, and the evidence was highly reliable and essential to serious charges.

The court concluded that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and dismissed the application.

The accused was charged with several firearms offences after police arrested him during a surveillance operation and recovered a loaded handgun beside a vehicle in which he was a passenger.

Prior to trial, the accused sought exclusion of the firearm under ss. 8, 9, and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found breaches of ss. 8 and 9 but admitted the firearm evidence under s. 24(2).

At trial, the central issue was whether the accused possessed the firearm.

Accepting the police officers’ testimony that the handgun fell from the accused’s waistband when he was removed from the vehicle and rejecting the accused’s alternative explanation, the court found possession proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and impaired driving.

The offender attacked a victim outside a bar with a machete, striking her in the head and causing a serious laceration and long-term psychological harm, before threatening others inside the bar.

The court considered the violent and unprovoked nature of the assault, the use of a weapon, and the significant impact on the victim as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s guilty plea, lack of prior violent record, advanced age, long-standing physical and mental health issues, and compliance with strict bail conditions.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence reflecting denunciation and deterrence while accounting for pre-trial custody credit.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown alleged that on May 9, 2010, the accused was found in a parked vehicle with the engine running in a parking lot near a licensed establishment.

A police sergeant observed signs of impairment and made an approved instrument demand.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and the admissibility of the breath samples on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found no Charter breaches and admitted the breath samples.

However, the court found reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest but insufficient evidence to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal on the impaired charge but conviction on the over 80 charge.

The accused, charged with impaired driving and driving over 80, applied for a stay of proceedings alleging unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The court analyzed the timeline from the swearing of the information to the trial dates, noting delays caused by the defence's change of counsel and refusal to proceed with a conditionally accredited interpreter.

The court found the institutional delay was approximately five and a half months, well within acceptable guidelines, and that the accused suffered no significant prejudice.

The application for a stay was dismissed.