Geoff Haskell

The appellants were convicted of first-degree murder based primarily on the testimony of a co-operating witness who was present during the shooting.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made three cumulative errors that rendered the trial unfair: providing an inadequate answer to a jury question about the absence of corroborative evidence, failing to correct improper statements made by the Crown during closing submissions, and improperly excluding a hearsay statement made by the key witness to his lawyer.

The Court ordered new trials for two of the appellants.

For the third appellant, the Court found the verdict unreasonable due to deeply flawed stranger identification evidence and entered an acquittal.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted to five accused charged with a $13 million fraud.

The trial was delayed by 60 months, significantly exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The Crown argued the delay was justified by the complexity of the case, the unexpected illness of two judges, and transitional exceptional circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge properly accounted for the case's complexity and the discrete event of the judges' illnesses, and correctly concluded that the delay was unreasonable and could not be justified under the transitional exception.

The self-represented appellant was convicted of fentanyl trafficking, conspiracy, and uttering forged documents.

He appealed on the basis that he was denied access to the Crown's digital disclosure while incarcerated during the trial.

The Crown conceded the trial was unfair and the appeal should be allowed, but argued for a new trial.

The appellant sought acquittals, arguing he had already served part of his sentence and the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding there was sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could convict.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence following guilty pleas to sexual interference, child luring, and making child pornography.

He argued the sentencing judge erred in finding the predicate offence was a serious personal injury offence and in considering his history of domestic violence as part of a repetitive pattern of behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sexual abuse of a child involved the use of violence and inflicted severe psychological damage.

The court also admitted fresh evidence of the appellant's rehabilitative progress but concluded it did not render the indeterminate sentence unreasonable given his high risk of reoffending.