Matthew McGarvey

The respondent was acquitted at trial of having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

The trial judge found that the respondent had started his car with a remote starter, was scraping ice off the window, had the keys in his pocket, and intended to drive away, but concluded there was no present danger because he had not entered the vehicle.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court upheld the acquittal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact compelled the legal conclusion that the respondent was in care or control, as his conduct created an obvious risk of danger.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault following an altercation outside a bar.

The central issue at trial was identity, resting almost entirely on the evidence of an eyewitness.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in analyzing the identification evidence, pointing to discrepancies in hair colour and height.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was fully alive to the potential frailties in the identification evidence and reasonably concluded the Crown had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed his convictions for prostitution-related offences, assault, and sexual assault, as well as his designation as a long-term offender and the ten-year supervision order.

He raised evidentiary issues regarding a prior consistent statement and collateral evidence of the complainant's subsequent conduct, and argued the jury charge was inadequate and lacked a Vetrovec warning.

He also challenged the validity of the Attorney General's consent for the long-term offender application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or the long-term offender proceedings.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for sexually assaulting a fourteen-year-old complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was fit given the severe trauma caused by the assault.

The appellant appealed a conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking arising from a street-level police encounter initiated on mere suspicion.

The court held that the police unlawfully detained the appellant, used immigration questioning as a pretext to create grounds for arrest, and then conducted an illegal search incident to that arrest.

The court found breaches of ss. 8, 9 and 10(b) of the Charter and concluded that the seized crack cocaine would not have been obtained absent those violations.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2), the conviction was quashed, and an acquittal was entered.