Christopher A. Avery

The appellant appealed his sentence of 4 years and 10 months.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Summers, the parties agreed the appellant was entitled to enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to time served, while noting the original sentence length was otherwise warranted.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 4 years and 3 months for armed robbery, unlawful confinement, and related offences.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's determination that a 5-year global sentence was appropriate given the significant planning and aggravating factors.

However, the Court found errors in the calculation of pre-disposition custody credit, specifically regarding a 3-week period prior to release and a 13-month period spent in custody on unrelated charges that were ultimately stayed.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced by 7 months to 3 years and 8 months.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent.

The trial judge had imposed two consecutive sentences of six months less a day, acknowledging a fit sentence would be 48 months, and gave 17 months credit for 11 months of pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding a fit sentence would be a further 19 months of incarceration.

However, because the respondent had already served the conditional sentence and the Crown did not seek further incarceration, the sentence was stayed.

The appellant appealed her convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

She argued that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate and that he improperly rejected her evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons adequate for appellate review.

The court held that the surveillance evidence corroborated the Crown's evidence, supporting the conclusion that the appellant was selling cocaine from her apartment and possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellants, who are Black, were convicted of robbery and related offences.

During jury selection, defence counsel were permitted to challenge prospective jurors for cause based on racial bias.

The appellants appealed their convictions, arguing that the trial judge's instructions to the triers on the challenge for cause procedure were inadequate and that the trial judge erred in his rulings regarding peremptory challenges when sworn jurors had to be replaced.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the instructions to the triers were sufficient and that, although the trial judge erred in law by initially granting extra peremptory challenges, the error caused no prejudice to the appellants.