Erica Whitford

The appellant appealed his sentence of 2 years and 11 months' imprisonment for firearms and drug trafficking offences, arguing he should have received additional credit for lockdowns and triple bunking during presentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge was aware of the difficult circumstances and that the few additional days of lockdown and triple bunking shown in newly filed records would not impact the sentence.

The Crown applied to revoke a release order after the respondent allegedly breached a condition.

The respondent argued the release order was a nullity because it was issued under s. 679(5) of the Criminal Code (release pending appeal) after the Court of Appeal had already allowed his appeal and ordered a new trial.

The motions judge agreed, finding that release pending a new trial must be ordered under s. 679(7.1).

The Crown's application was dismissed, and the matter of interim release was remitted to the Superior Court of Justice for a de novo hearing.

The appellant pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his domestic partner and was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit, based on a joint submission.

On appeal, he argued for a further sentence reduction due to harsh conditions in pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the sentence was based on a joint submission by experienced counsel and was entirely fit.

The appellant appealed his sentence of seven years and seven months for firearms and drug offences, arguing the trial judge erred by treating him as a recidivist based on his youth record and by failing to grant a further sentence reduction for harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly weighed the appellant's continuous criminal record, including a youth conviction for first-degree murder using a firearm, to assess moral culpability.

The Court also held that the trial judge appropriately factored the harsh pre-trial conditions into the global sentence without requiring a mathematical deduction.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography and his 15-month custodial sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in her Garofoli ruling regarding the search warrant and in declining to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter despite finding three s. 8 breaches.

He also argued the sentence was harsh given his medical condition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's application of the law on amplification or the Grant analysis.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court deferring to the trial judge's consideration of the appellant's medical condition.

The defendants, the editor and publisher of the community newspaper Your Ward News, were charged with two counts of wilful promotion of hatred against Jews and women under s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown called expert witnesses to contextualize the anti-Semitic and misogynistic content of the publication.

The court found that the newspaper repeatedly and consistently dehumanized Jews and women, employing extreme vilification, Holocaust denial, and advocacy of violence.

The court rejected the defence that the content was merely satirical or anti-Marxist, concluding that both defendants were fully aware of the hate propaganda and intended to promote it.

Both defendants were found guilty on all counts.