D. Edwin Boeve

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge erred in finding no air of reality to his defence of duress.

The appellant claimed he was forced to transport drugs to pay off a $40,000 debt to an unsavoury character who threatened him and his family.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant had safe avenues of escape, such as going to the police or liquidating his RRSPs, and therefore failed to establish an air of reality to the defence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a decision of a Summary Conviction Appeal Judge who had ordered a new trial for the accused.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction.

The Court found that the trial judge's section 16 competence inquiry of the child complainant was adequate, as it established her ability to observe, recollect, communicate, and understand the difference between truth and a lie.

Furthermore, the Court held that the trial judge properly understood the complainant's evidence regarding penetration and that there was no inconsistency with the medical evidence.

Finally, the Court concluded that the trial judge provided adequate reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence and rejecting the accused's testimony.

The respondent pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and other offences.

At sentencing, she had spent 16 months in pre-sentence custody.

The sentencing judge considered this equivalent to almost three years and imposed a 14-month conditional sentence, which the Court of Appeal upheld.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that under s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code, a conditional sentence is unavailable to an offender who otherwise deserves a penitentiary term.

Time spent in pre-sentence custody cannot be used to reduce the sentence range to make a conditional sentence available.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Crown failed to explicitly establish that the police officer who administered the breath test was a qualified technician.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was open to the trial judge to infer the officer's designation from her testimony, her official capacity, and the certificate she produced, which created a rebuttable presumption that was not challenged.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual interference involving a child complainant.

On the conviction appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in admitting prior consistent statements made by the complainant.

The Court of Appeal found that while some statements were improperly admitted, the appellant suffered no prejudice as the trial judge did not rely on them in her reasons.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found the trial judge erred in principle by treating the appellant's decision to go to trial as an aggravating factor and by finding a risk of re-offending without supporting evidence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, but the sentence appeal was allowed, substituting an eight-month jail term with a 15-month conditional sentence.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for aggravated assault and other offences.

The sentencing judge had credited the respondent's 16 months of pre-sentence custody as equivalent to almost three years, reducing the appropriate sentence to 14 months, which was then ordered to be served conditionally.

The Crown argued that pre-sentence custody cannot be used to reduce a penitentiary-range sentence to under two years to make a conditional sentence available.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 719(3) of the Criminal Code, a sentencing judge may take pre-sentence custody into account when determining the appropriate range of sentence for the purposes of the conditional sentencing regime.