Lawrence Ben-Eliezer

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery, arguing the defence of colour of right applied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the defence did not arise on the facts, as the appellant demanded the money, pointed an imitation firearm, and never asserted a right to the money.

The appellant was acquitted of impaired driving but convicted of driving with a blood alcohol level over 80mg.

The trial judge found the appellant honest but rejected his evidence regarding alcohol consumption, relying on breathalyzer results.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons failed to meet the functional test in Sheppard, as they did not explain the basis for the conviction or whether the breathalyzer results were improperly used to assess credibility.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant pleaded guilty to fraud-related offences after defrauding his employer of over $70,000 to finance gambling and stock market activities.

He was sentenced to four months' incarceration, two years' probation, and ordered to make full restitution.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for denying a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge adequately explained the decision, properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and correctly prioritized denunciation and general deterrence for a breach of trust fraud.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

He argued that the trial judge erred in denying him an adjournment to obtain new counsel after he discharged his previous lawyer, and that the trial judge failed to provide the minimum assistance required for an unrepresented accused.

The Court of Appeal agreed on both grounds, finding that the trial judge erred in principle in denying the adjournment and failed to provide the necessary guidance to the unrepresented appellant, resulting in an unfair trial.

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

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and forcible confinement, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his alibi and erred in refusing to allow re-examination on a driving issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons, read as a whole, supported the rejection of the alibi and that the compelling identification evidence rendered the re-examination issue non-determinative.

The respondent on an appeal from the Small Claims Court brought a motion before a judge of the Divisional Court to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The appellant argued that the court lacked primary jurisdiction to hear the motion.

The court agreed, finding that under Rule 61.13(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss an appeal for delay must be brought before the Registrar of the Divisional Court.

The court ordered the matter to be set down before the Registrar on an expedited basis and awarded costs of the motion to the respondent.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving over 80, arguing that the breathalyzer test was not administered 'as soon as practicable' as required by the Criminal Code.

The evidence showed an unexplained 33-minute gap between the appellant's attendance before the officer in charge and the call to duty counsel.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider this gap and apply the test of whether the breath test was administered within a reasonably prompt time.

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

The appellant was convicted of driving with excess alcohol.

At trial, the judge disbelieved the appellant's evidence, finding it could not provide a foundation for 'evidence to the contrary', and drew an adverse inference from his failure to call a confirmatory witness.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the trial judge's disbelief of the appellant's evidence was the primary basis for rejecting the defence, and the adverse inference was merely ancillary.

The appellant was convicted of operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 milligrams.

At trial, a toxicologist testified that based on the appellant's reported consumption, an average person would have registered below the legal limit, but a slow eliminator could register over the limit.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, and the summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the appeal.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal held that expert evidence relying on population averages, without establishing the appellant's actual elimination rate, is impermissible speculation and does not constitute evidence tending to show the appellant's blood alcohol was below the legal limit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed after guilty pleas to impaired driving and impaired driving causing bodily harm arising from two serious alcohol-related collisions seven months apart.

The court held that the sentencing judge erred in law by failing to give proper weight to general deterrence and denunciation in the context of repeat impaired driving with extremely high blood alcohol readings and bodily harm.

Applying the conditional sentence framework under s. 742.1, the court concluded that a community-based sentence was not proportionate to the gravity and cumulative character of the offences.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and the six-month conditional sentence was replaced with a five-month custodial term, with probation terms varied.

The appellant brought a motion for an order pursuant to section 70 of the Supreme Court Act reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which had upheld his conviction for driving 'over 80'.

Upon reading the materials filed and noting the consent of the parties, the Supreme Court of Canada granted the motion, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and entered an acquittal.