Adam Wheeler

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for theft under $5,000.

He had entered a bank, passed a note demanding money, and left with $600.

After a directed verdict dismissed a robbery charge, he pled guilty to the included offence of theft.

On appeal, he argued there was an insufficient factual basis for the conviction and that his sentence should have been reduced to six months to avoid collateral immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the elements of theft were met.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge had properly considered the immigration consequences but concluded a 12-month sentence was fit and proportionate.

The appellant appealed convictions for three offences relating to procuring and attempting to coerce a minor into prostitution.

The Crown’s case relied primarily on the complainant’s testimony and a video statement admitted under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant identified photographs from a social media profile as depicting the individual who attempted to force her into escort work, and the trial judge compared those photographs with the appellant’s arrest photograph to confirm identity.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to rely on both the complainant’s identification and his own comparison of the photographs.

The convictions were supported by the evidence and disclosed no legal or factual error.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual interference, sexual exploitation, and sexual assault involving his stepchild.

The prosecution relied heavily on the complainant’s testimony along with evidence that the complainant had previously disclosed the allegations to friends, family members, and a boyfriend.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge properly admitted the prior consistent statements to rebut defence suggestions of recent fabrication and motive to lie.

However, the trial judge erred by relying on those statements as proof that the offences occurred, effectively treating them as corroborative evidence during the W.(D.) credibility analysis.

Because this constituted an impermissible use of prior consistent statements, the convictions could not stand.

A new trial was ordered on all counts.