Karen Unger

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's disposition was consistent with expert medical opinion and supported by the evidence, and therefore not unreasonable.

The appellant's arguments regarding disclosure and consistency of allegations relating to the index offences were rejected.

The appellant, a store owner who sold hemp products and marihuana seedlings, was convicted of possession and trafficking of cannabis sativa.

He challenged the constitutionality of the prohibition on simple possession of marihuana under the Narcotic Control Act, arguing it infringed section 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the availability of imprisonment engages the right to liberty, the prohibition accords with the principles of fundamental justice.

The Court rejected arguments based on privacy, overbreadth, and statutory interpretation regarding THC levels.

The appellant was convicted of four counts of bank robbery and one count of disguise with intent.

He appealed on the grounds that his unrecorded inculpatory statements to police were involuntary and that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on eyewitness identification.

The Court of Appeal found that the police deliberately interrogated the appellant without recording equipment, rendering the statements suspect and inadmissible.

The court also found errors in the jury charge on identification evidence.

Without the statements, the verdicts on four counts were unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, acquittals entered on four counts, and a new trial ordered on the remaining count.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, sexual assault, forcible confinement, and related offences, as well as his six-year sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in providing jury instructions in instalments, misdirecting on reasonable doubt, admitting expert and bad character evidence, and refusing a mistrial after inflammatory Crown remarks.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's corrected instructions on reasonable doubt were sufficient, the evidence was properly admitted or cured by instructions, and the sentence was appropriate given the violent and degrading nature of the offences committed while on probation.