Kevin Chan

The appellant pled guilty to defrauding her employer of over $210,000 through fraudulent schemes and forgeries over several years.

She appealed her sentence of two years less a day, arguing the sentencing judge erred by not imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's emphasis on the appellant's significant criminal record for similar offences and the need for specific and general deterrence, despite her guilty plea and full restitution.

The applicant sought release pending appeal from convictions for two counts of indecent assault against the daughters of his then-partner, committed approximately 50 years ago when the victims were approximately 9 and 13 years old.

The applicant received a conditional sentence.

The Crown opposed the release application, arguing the applicant failed to establish that his grounds of appeal were not frivolous and that immediate enforcement was necessary to maintain public confidence given the seriousness of the offences.

The motion judge granted the application for release, finding that the applicant's ground of appeal regarding the trial judge's admission of extraneous bad character evidence clearly surpassed the "not frivolous" criterion and that the reviewability interest outweighed the immediate enforceability interest.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against a Not Criminally Responsible by Reason of Mental Disorder (NCR) verdict entered in 2013 following a guilty plea to two counts of aggravated assault.

This was the applicant's second application for an extension of time, the first having been denied in 2016.

The applicant raised new grounds of appeal based on an allegedly uninformed plea and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting reconsideration and granted the extension of time, finding that the interests of justice favoured allowing the appeal to proceed despite the significant delay and prejudice to the Crown.

The applicant was convicted of two counts of human trafficking and sentenced to 7.5 years imprisonment.

She sought bail pending appeal on three grounds: (1) the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay evidence; (2) the trial judge erred in dismissing an application to re-litigate the hearsay issue; and (3) the trial judge misapprehended evidence and provided insufficient reasons.

The motion judge found the appeal was not frivolous and that detention was not necessary in the public interest, granting bail pending appeal.