Laura Eplett

The 18-year-old appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and firearms offences, receiving a sentence of five years and two months after credit for pre-trial custody.

On appeal, he sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding systemic racism and background factors facing black Canadians.

The Court of Appeal declined to admit the fresh evidence, finding that while such factors could be relevant in sentencing, the appellant's crimes were too serious for them to affect the result.

However, the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to four years and two months, finding the trial judge erred by focusing almost exclusively on denunciation and general deterrence for a youthful offender facing his first penitentiary sentence.

The Crown appealed the trial judge's refusal to grant a DNA databanking order under s. 487.052 of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge had refused the order solely because the offence was committed before the provisions came into force.

The respondent conceded this was an error but argued the matter should be remitted to the trial judge to allow the defence to present evidence.

The Court of Appeal found the evidentiary record was complete and the evidence supporting the order was overwhelming.

The appeal was allowed and the DNA databanking order was granted.

The appellants appealed their convictions for robbery and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

One appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing eyewitness identification evidence, while the other argued the trial judge made inconsistent findings regarding his control of the weapons and role in the robbery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding that the trial judge's findings were not inconsistent and that the convictions were supported by the totality of the circumstantial and identification evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm offences and trafficking in cocaine.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in excluding defence evidence that demonstrated a key Crown witness's ongoing animus towards the appellant.

This evidence was admissible under an established exception to the collateral fact rule.

Because the witness's credibility was central to the findings on both the firearm and cocaine charges, the curative proviso could not be applied.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and new trials were ordered on all counts.

The appellant appealed his convictions on the basis that the trial judge improperly communicated with the jury during their deliberations.

The trial judge sent an ex-parte note to the jury imposing an arbitrary deadline and suggesting they report verdicts they had reached if they were unable to agree on others.

The Court of Appeal held that this procedure was wrong as it denied the appellant due process, constituted an improper ex-parte communication, interfered with deliberations, and placed undue pressure on the jury.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.