Irwin Koziebrocki

The appellant appealed a decision of the Provincial Offences Appeal court that had dismissed an appeal from a conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding a potential for a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant pleaded guilty to criminal harassment against his former spouse and was sentenced to an effective 17 months' incarceration and 3 years' probation.

He appealed the sentence, arguing it was excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge committed no error in principle and appropriately weighed the aggravating factors, including a history of domestic violence and the profound fear instilled in the victims, against the mitigating factors.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of criminal negligence causing death after driving erratically at high speeds while under the influence of alcohol, striking a parked car and killing two people.

He was sentenced to two years less a day of incarceration, three years of probation, and a ten-year driving prohibition.

On appeal, the appellant argued for a conditional sentence and sought to introduce fresh evidence of his rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the custodial sentence, finding no error in the sentencing judge's emphasis on denunciation and general deterrence.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to reduce the driving prohibition from ten years to five years, noting that a longer prohibition would unreasonably hamper the young appellant's future employment prospects.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder after stabbing his stepmother 30 times in a parking lot.

He appealed the conviction on several grounds, including the admission of his initial statement to police, the adequacy of jury instructions regarding eyewitness identification, post-offence conduct, the intent required for murder, and the failure to give a complete W. (D.) instruction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was not detained during his initial police interview, and that while there were minor errors in the jury charge, they did not amount to a reversible error or cause a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual offences, including historical assaults and an incident on April 11.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or the inculpatory inferences drawn from the appellant's conduct when confronted.

The court also upheld the sentence, finding it was at the high end but within the appropriate range.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment with 12 years of parole ineligibility.

He argued the trial judge erred in leaving section 21(2) of the Criminal Code with the jury, in instructing on the doctrine of recent possession, and in defining abetting to include purposeful presence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient evidence of a predicate offence (robbery) and no reversible errors in the jury instructions.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 12-year parole ineligibility period was within the appropriate range given the brutal nature of the murder.

The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple fraud-related offences and was sentenced to three years' incarceration and ordered to pay $19,542.42 in restitution.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in assessing rehabilitation prospects, overemphasizing his criminal record, and imposing restitution.

The Court of Appeal upheld the custodial sentence, noting the appellant's extensive criminal record and the seriousness of the offences.

However, the Court set aside the restitution order because the sentencing judge failed to consider the appellant's ability to pay.

The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal harassment, assault, and breach of probation, as well as his sentence of over seven years' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that a single incident of threatening conduct can constitute criminal harassment if it causes the complainant to fear for her safety and carries the prospect of ongoing torment.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the original sentence disproportionate and outside the appropriate range.

The sentence was reduced to an effective term of just over four and a half years.

The appellant pleaded guilty to five counts of robbery and was sentenced to 35 months' imprisonment concurrent on each charge.

He appealed the sentence, seeking a variation to avoid losing his right to appeal a deportation order under s. 64(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which applies to sentences of two years or more for a single offence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, varying the sentence to 23 months concurrent on four counts and 12 months consecutive on the fifth count, maintaining the global sentence of 35 months while preserving the appellant's right to appeal his deportation.

The appellant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to break and enter dwelling houses and assault with intent to steal, as well as his 14-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's Vetrovec warning regarding unsavoury witnesses was adequate and the review of the defence position was sufficient.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed because the trial judge erred by treating the appellant's trial testimony as an aggravating factor and failing to consider his first-offender status.

The sentence was reduced to 10 years' imprisonment, and the order delaying parole eligibility was set aside.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a home invasion where the complainants were threatened at gunpoint, held hostage, and threatened with being set on fire.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for accepting the complainants' evidence despite its frailties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate and showed he considered the frailties and rejected the suggestion of collusion.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the six-year sentence (less pre-trial custody credit) was not manifestly unfit given the serious aggravating factors, including the appellant's role as the instigator.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the Crown should not have been permitted to cross-examine the appellant on statements that had not been proven voluntary, as there was no clear waiver of a voir dire.

The trial judge had relied on these statements to impugn the appellant's credibility.

Furthermore, the court found the verdict unreasonable regarding 24 bills found in another person's home, as there was insufficient evidence of control.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were set aside.

Given that the appellant had already served over a year of his sentence, a stay of proceedings was entered.

The appellant appealed his conviction and 17-month sentence for sexual offences against a young complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on certain evidence as confirmatory of the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal found that while one item of confirmatory evidence was improperly considered, the error was harmless and the verdict would have been the same.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, and the custodial sentence was reduced from 17 months to 12 months, as the original sentence exceeded the range for similar circumstances.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder and his life sentence with 14 years of parole ineligibility.

He raised several grounds of appeal, including the adequacy of the jury instructions on reasonable doubt and after-the-fact conduct, the reasonableness of the verdict, the trial judge's review of the evidence, and the handling of a jury question.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's instructions or handling of the trial.

The court also granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the appeal, upholding the 14-year parole ineligibility period.

The appellant appealed his 15-month sentence for breach of recognizance and other offences.

The Court of Appeal rejected arguments regarding pre-sentence custody credit and the acceptable range of sentence, but found the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to consider mitigating factors, including the appellant's substance abuse problem and expressions of remorse.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced to 12 months' incarceration.

The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm after attacking a young woman in her bed at night, causing severe injuries.

He was sentenced to two years and three months in the penitentiary.

He appealed the sentence, arguing it was unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's emphasis on denunciation and general deterrence, and concluding the sentence was within the appropriate range given the serious circumstances of the attack and the appellant's prior record.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual offences.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's credibility findings, noting they were well-supported by the evidence, including a corroborating statement made by the complainant's sister.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding a custodial term was not unreasonable and declining to give weight to fresh evidence, which included an unsworn letter from the complainant asking for leniency.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence of two years less a day followed by three years' probation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's reasons for conviction.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found no error in principle, noting the trial judge appropriately considered the appellant's age of 78 and medical condition, which mitigated what would otherwise have been a three-year penitentiary term.

Fresh evidence regarding the appellant's medical condition was considered but did not alter the sentence, as it could be managed by prison authorities.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the complainant and the appellant.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge reasonably concluded the complainant's evidence was confirmed by another witness in critical respects, and that variations in testimony were collateral or explained by intoxication.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's treatment of a serious inconsistency in the appellant's evidence.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, and the appeal from sentence was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his sentence for historical offences of gross indecency and indecent assault.

He had served 4.5 months in jail and sought a conditional sentence for the balance of a one-year term.

The Crown conceded that the ten-year weapons prohibition was illegal as the provision did not exist at the time of the offences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the weapons prohibition and ordering the balance of the one-year sentence to be served as a conditional sentence, followed by 12 months of probation, noting the appellant's age, the historical nature of the offences, and his lack of related offences in the interim.