Jennifer Woollcombe

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittals on charges including sexual assault.

Before sentencing on the convictions, the trial judge declared a mistrial on the convictions after admitting he had visited the dating website where the accused and complainant met and had discussed it with the investigating officer in chambers.

The trial judge concluded he was functus officio regarding the acquittals.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding that the trial judge's independent research and comments created a reasonable apprehension of bias that tainted the acquittals.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed the summary dismissal of his mandamus application, which sought to overturn the Crown's decision to stay his private prosecution.

The appellant alleged that the Attorney General was in an inherent conflict of interest, constituting an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's finding that there was no evidence of an abuse of process to justify reviewing the Attorney General's prosecutorial discretion under section 579 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed his convictions and 7.5-year sentence for four bank robberies and related firearms offences.

He argued the trial judge erred in accepting eyewitness identification from four bank tellers and recognition evidence from a police officer, citing discrepancies and flawed photo line-up procedures.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the criteria for assessing photo identification evidence and was alive to the frailties of eyewitness testimony.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was within the appropriate range and the trial judge did not err in applying the totality principle to the mandatory consecutive sentences.

The appellant, who was 16 at the time of the offence, appealed his conviction for second degree murder and his adult sentence of life imprisonment without parole for seven years.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence that he suffered from Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), arguing it affected his ability to foresee the consequences of stabbing the victim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the fresh evidence lacked the cogency to affect the verdict, as the expert could not conclude the FASD impacted the appellant's state of mind at the time.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the fresh evidence did not alter the appellant's moral blameworthiness or the appropriateness of the adult sentence.

The Crown brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal of the respondent's acquittals.

The proposed appeal was based on a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from a post-judgment conversation between the trial judge and the investigating officer.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension, finding that although the Crown initially pursued the wrong remedy, there was an arguable appeal on the merits and no undue prejudice to the respondent.

The interests of justice favoured allowing the appeal to proceed.