Emily Morton

The appellant, a 43-year-old Aboriginal man, appealed his sentence of two years less a day followed by two years' probation for possession for the purpose of trafficking in heroin and oxycodone.

The appellant argued for a reduction based on pre-trial custody credit.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the offences involved commercial trafficking in Schedule 1 drugs by an addict to support his habit.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court reiterating the trial judge's recommendation that the sentence be served at the Ontario Correctional Institute.

The appellant appealed his four-year global sentence for gun and drug offences.

Relying on the recent decision in R. v. Nur, the Court of Appeal reconsidered the sentence but concluded that the four-year term remained fit, noting that the combination of gun and drug offences poses a pernicious threat to public safety.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings entered on the basis of unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter in a drug prosecution arising from a residential grow operation.

The court held that the application judge mischaracterized part of the delay associated with a joint adjournment of a judicial pre-trial and part of the post-assignment period before trial, both of which should have been treated as inherent delay rather than Crown or institutional delay.

With those deductions, the net Crown and institutional delay fell at the low end of the Morin guidelines.

Given the seriousness of the charges, the societal interest in a trial on the merits, and the weak evidence of actual prejudice, the delay was not unreasonable.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and his sentence.

He argued that he did not possess a needle during the incident and that his trial was unfair.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, noting that the trial judge accepted the victim's evidence regarding the needle and that the record did not support the claim of an unfair trial.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge gave appropriate weight to the appellant's aboriginal heritage, difficult childhood, and addiction issues, finding no error in principle and that the sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction and four-year sentence for sexual assault and breach of probation.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to adequately address a gap in the complainant's memory shortly before the assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficiently addressed the live issues of credibility and reliability, noting that the complainant clearly expressed her lack of consent during the sexual acts regardless of any prior memory gap.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the four-year term was within the appropriate range given the appellant's prior record and the circumstances of the offence.