Karen Papadopoulos

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted on the basis that the respondent's s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time was violated.

The respondent was charged following a complex gang investigation.

After a mistrial, the application judge found the cumulative 41-month delay unreasonable, attributing significant portions to the Crown.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred by failing to characterize significant periods of delay in the Superior Court of Justice as neutral, including intake periods and delay caused by the mistrial.

Properly characterized, the institutional delay was within the Morin guidelines and not unreasonable.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the motions judge erred in her s. 24(2) Charter analysis after finding an unlawful arrest.

The appellant contended that the motions judge's finding of good faith was inconsistent with her finding that the officers lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge accepted the officers' evidence that they believed they had authority to arrest, and it was open to her to consider the high crime area in assessing police conduct under s. 24(2).

The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including sexual assault and forcible confinement, committed against his former partner.

The sentencing judge imposed consecutive sentences resulting in a global sentence of 7.5 years, exceeding the Crown's submission of 6 years.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the global sentence manifestly failed to respect the totality principle under s. 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was allowed, and the global sentence was reduced to 5 years.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm offences, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting a statement he made to police during the execution of a search warrant.

The appellant, who was handcuffed, cold, and shivering after stun grenades were deployed, was asked by police where his coat was, leading to the discovery of a firearm.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge made three errors in assessing voluntariness: erroneously finding a partial caution was given, failing to consider the cold as an inducement, and misapprehending evidence about whether the appellant was offered other jackets.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on drug and gun charges, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The trial judge had found that the police breached the respondent's s. 10(b) rights by asking an officer safety question after he requested counsel, which led to the discovery of marijuana and a gun in the trunk.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge committed material errors in his s. 24(2) analysis, including failing to consider the respondent's own testimony, the reason for the delay in the search, and the context of the officer safety question.

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

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for possession of a controlled substance and breaches of a long term supervision order.

Based on fresh evidence, the Court of Appeal set aside two convictions and entered acquittals.

The sentence for the remaining breach of a long term supervision order was reduced to 12 months, less 3 months of pre-trial custody, for a net sentence of 9 months.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the trial judge failed to address peripheral evidence and erred in finding he was in a position of trust.

He also sought an intermittent sentence for his 45-day term.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the evidence peripheral and the position of trust supported by the record.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for two sexual assaults arising from a former intimate relationship and sought to replace concurrent custodial sentences with conditional sentences.

The court held that the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) framework, did not materially misapprehend the complainant's evidence, and did not subject the appellant's testimony to uneven scrutiny.

On sentence, the court held that the second assault properly engaged a trust-based aggravating consideration within the parties' prior intimate relationship and that the sentences imposed were not demonstrably unfit.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, leave to appeal sentence was granted, and the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a suspended sentence and three years' probation imposed on an aboriginal offender who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after striking the victim with a broken beer bottle.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 12 to 18 months, arguing the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to denunciation and deterrence.

The Court of Appeal (majority) dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly applied the Gladue principles and committed no error in principle, concluding the sentence was not manifestly unfit.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and imposed a 12-month custodial sentence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, applied differential scrutiny to the witnesses, and misapplied the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's use of the appellant's denial of a sexual relationship with the complainant's sister to assess his credibility.

The court also held that the trial judge did not apply a differential standard of scrutiny or reverse the onus of proof.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a 100-day sentence imposed on the respondent for sexual assault and forcible confinement of his wife.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence demonstrably unfit given the gravity of the offences, which involved significant violence and degradation in the context of a marital breakdown while the respondent was on bail.

The Court determined a fit sentence would be 21 months.

However, because the respondent had already served the 100 days, was doing well in the community, and supported his children, the Court declined to reincarcerate him and instead imposed a conditional sentence for the remainder of the 21-month term.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault.

He argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the complainant's credibility and by stating that penetration was not relevant to establish sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury would have understood the evidence relevant to the complainant's credibility and that the trial judge was correct in law regarding penetration.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was not outside the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed his conviction for break and enter with intent to commit theft, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly consider frailties in the eyewitness identification evidence and effectively reversed the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was alive to the frailties, including issues with the photo line-up and discrepancies in the description, and made no error warranting appellate intervention.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of assault against his domestic partner, arising from incidents involving a dog dish and a wicker chair.

He was acquitted of several other related charges.

On appeal, the appellant argued the convictions were unreasonable given the trial judge's finding that the complainant's evidence was incredible and unreliable.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding no basis to distinguish the convictions from the acquittals, and noting the lack of confirmatory evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and acquittals were substituted.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting his wife.

The trial judge was faced with conflicting versions of events but failed to explain how he resolved the credibility contest, relying on a misapprehended finding about the appellant's sexual appetite.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons were so inadequate that proper appellate review was impossible.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient evidence on the record to support a finding of actual knowledge or wilful blindness.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part; the custodial portion was moot as it had been served, but the restitution order was set aside on the Crown's concession.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault.

He argued that the trial judge erred by allowing the Crown to advance an alternative theory of liability based on his statement, and that the trial judge unreasonably concluded the assault created a risk of bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no unfairness in the alternative theory and holding that the trial judge's conclusion regarding the risk of bodily harm was reasonable.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

On the conviction appeal, he argued the trial judge shifted the burden of proof and misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof and made findings grounded in the evidence.

The sentence appeal, which sought a conditional discharge instead of the imposed fine and probation, was also dismissed as the trial judge made no error in principle.

The appellant appealed an effective sentence of 18 months imprisonment.

He argued the trial judge erred by rejecting what amounted to a joint submission from the Crown and defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge gave fair notice and adequate reasons for concluding the suggested sentence was contrary to the public interest, noting the appellant was an incorrigible con-man who victimized women and showed no respect for court orders.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for break and enter, uttering a threat, and possession of a weapon.

He argued that the identification evidence was unreliable and that he was prejudiced by the loss of the weapon (a nightstick) before trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the identification evidence supported by the appellant's own statement and circumstantial evidence, and no prejudice from the missing weapon.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the four-year term for a home invasion to collect a drug debt was within the appropriate range.