Charmaine Wong

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting his videotaped statement to police.

He claimed he had equivocally invoked his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter during the interview.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual determination that the appellant had not expressed a desire to consult counsel.

The appellant appealed his conviction for criminal harassment and breach of probation, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea on the basis that he was pressured by his trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal found that the plea was voluntary, informed, and unequivocal, noting the appellant's familiarity with the process and the time elapsed between his decision and the actual plea.

The court also declined to admit the appellant's affidavit as fresh evidence, finding it lacked credibility under the Palmer test.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder and robbery.

On appeal, he argued for the first time that his s. 10(b) Charter rights were violated when police elicited an unrecorded statement from him after he requested counsel but before he was given an opportunity to consult one.

The Court of Appeal allowed the issue to be raised, finding a sufficient evidentiary record and no prejudice to the Crown.

The Court held that subsequent recorded statements, taken after the appellant consulted counsel, were tainted by the initial breach due to their close temporal and contextual connection.

The statements were excluded under s. 24(2) as conscriptive evidence, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

At the request of the appellant, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his sentence after forging his wife's signature 26 times over eight months to withdraw $114,994.07 from her RRSP account, leaving her with a $25,000 tax debt.

The sentencing judge rejected the appellant's explanation for the use of the funds and concluded that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the breach of trust, planning, and need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's analysis or in the restitution order, noting that any overlapping issues could be addressed in family law proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a newspaper reporter, wrote an article that breached a publication ban under s. 486(5) of the Criminal Code.

Neither the reporter nor the newspaper knew of the ban.

The trial judge acquitted the reporter as a principal but convicted the newspaper.

On summary conviction appeal, the reporter was convicted as an aider and abettor under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code based on an objective mens rea standard.

The Court of Appeal allowed the reporter's appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that liability as an aider or abettor under s. 21(1)(b) or (c) requires subjective mens rea, specifically knowledge of the circumstances constituting the offence.