Alex Hrybinsky

The Crown brought an application to unseal documents held by an accounting firm (PWC) that were subject to a production order in a fraud investigation.

The respondent claimed blanket solicitor-client and litigation privilege over the entire PWC file, arguing the accountants were retained by his law firm to assist with a CRA voluntary disclosure application.

The court rejected the blanket privilege claim, finding that the accountants were primarily performing independent accounting functions (preparing tax returns) rather than acting solely as a conduit for legal advice.

The court ordered a document-by-document review by appointed referees to identify any specific privileged communications.

The appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault on his father and was sentenced to 16 months' custody followed by 3 years' probation.

He appealed his sentence, arguing he was not receiving the recommended psychiatric treatment in custody.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's decision.

The court noted the appellant's refusal of a proposed variation to facilitate a transfer to a psychiatric hospital and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the probation conditions were intended to ensure he receives help upon release.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to touch for a sexual purpose against his five-year-old great-niece, as well as possession of child pornography.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in her jury instructions regarding the complainant's prior consistent statements and the use of the child pornography evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error regarding the prior statements but held the trial judge erred by failing to expressly instruct the jury that the child pornography evidence could not be used to determine guilt on the sexual abuse charges.

The convictions for the sexual offences were quashed and a new trial ordered.

The conviction for possession of child pornography was upheld, but the sentence was reduced to time served after applying the correct pre-sentence custody credit.

The appellant pleaded guilty to defrauding his employer of over $2.3 million and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and ordered to pay $1.3 million in restitution.

After serving his sentence, he appealed the restitution orders, arguing inability to pay and that the orders hindered his ability to obtain a record suspension.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant's failure to explain where the stolen funds went, his breach of trust, and his choice to prioritize significant discretionary spending over making restitution payments.

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder.

During the investigation, an undercover police officer posed as an Obeah spiritual advisor and obtained incriminating statements from two of the appellants.

The appellants appealed, arguing that the undercover operation violated their Charter rights to freedom of religion and equality, constituted a 'dirty trick', and that the statements were protected by common law religious privilege.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants' participation was motivated by a desire to obstruct the justice system rather than sincere religious belief, and that the police conduct did not shock the conscience of the community.

The court also upheld the trial judge's decisions regarding an in camera hearing and the refusal to sever the trial of the third co-accused.

The appellant appealed his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by stating he was throwing all sentencing principles out the window except for separating the offender from society.

The Court allowed the appeal and imposed a global sentence of 10 years, taking into account the offender's egregious record, the seriousness of the offence involving two young people, and prior sentences for similar offences.

The appellant appealed his global sentence of three years' imprisonment for multiple drug and firearms offences, arguing it was unfit after his conviction for possession of a loaded firearm was overturned on a previous appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding that the combination of drugs and guns is a serious aggravating factor and the three-year sentence remained fit and appropriate to achieve denunciation and deterrence.

The court also upheld the 30-day concurrent sentence for breaching a recognizance condition prohibiting cellphone possession.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault convictions, seeking to introduce fresh evidence consisting of a death certificate for the complainant's younger brother.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence under the Palmer test, finding it was determinative of a factual issue regarding the timing of the alleged offences.

The evidence raised a real question as to whether the appellant committed the assaults as an adult or a juvenile.

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