Robert Goldstein

The appellants were convicted of multiple counts of GST and income tax evasion based on a net worth analysis.

Their summary conviction was upheld on appeal to the Superior Court of Justice.

They sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing the trial judge improperly stereotyped electricians and engaged in prohibited propensity reasoning by referencing documents about an unrelated fraudulent scheme.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding the trial judge's comments, while unfortunate, did not amount to reviewable error or raise significant issues of trial fairness, and the case against the appellants was overwhelming.

The appellant, a Canadian citizen, was convicted of hostage-taking for his role in capturing UN military observers in Bosnia in 1995 and using them as human shields against NATO air strikes.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by refusing to leave certain statutory defences with the jury, misdirecting on other defences, and refusing to stay the proceedings due to alleged Charter violations under ss. 7 and 11(b).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the proposed defences, no error in the jury instructions, and that the complex national security disclosure process and trial delay did not violate the appellant's Charter rights.

The appellant was convicted of production of marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and wilful damage to property related to two commercial grow operations.

He appealed his 18-month sentence, arguing the trial judge improperly sentenced him as part of a criminal organization and improperly considered his immigration status as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit and that a conditional sentence would not satisfy the principle of general deterrence.

The appellant appealed his sentence, introducing fresh evidence regarding his severe health problems and ineligibility for day parole.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the health issues did not render the sentence unfit and noting that the appellant would likely be deported early, freeing him from the sentence entirely.

The appellant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to smuggle, sell, and possess alcohol, and possession of unlawfully imported spirits.

The Court of Appeal found significant errors in the trial judge's jury instructions.

The trial judge failed to adequately explain the defence's position, mischaracterized the defence's argument regarding the police investigation, and improperly suggested that police surveillance confirmed the evidence of unsavoury witnesses.

Additionally, the instructions on the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule (the Carter test) were confusing and deficient.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.