Samuel Walker

During a jury trial for drug trafficking and firearms offences, the accused sought to introduce the criminal record of a third-party suspect.

In response, the Crown brought an application to introduce the accused's prior youth conviction for assault causing bodily harm as rebuttal evidence of disposition.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, holding that because the accused's youth sentence had ceased to have effect, section 82 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act deemed him not to have been convicted of the offence, rendering the record inadmissible at that stage of the trial.

The appellants, a father, mother, and son, were convicted of four counts of first-degree murder after four family members were found drowned in a submerged vehicle.

On appeal, the son sought to introduce fresh evidence claiming he was a young person at the time of the offences, thereby challenging the adult court's jurisdiction.

The appellants also appealed on grounds relating to the admission of expert evidence on honour killings, instructions on post-offence conduct, the admission of ante-mortem hearsay statements, and the Crown's theory of liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to introduce fresh evidence, finding the proposed documents lacked threshold reliability.

The Court also dismissed all conviction appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm and forcible seizure following an alleyway beating outside a nightclub.

At trial, the judge admitted a security guard's written statement identifying the appellant as a participant under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the statement lacked threshold reliability and that phone call evidence was mishandled.

He also appealed his three-and-a-half year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the hearsay evidence met the traditional exception's conditions, the jury was properly instructed, and the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the vigilante attack.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assault and breach of probation and was sentenced to 183 days in custody based on a joint submission.

He subsequently discovered that this sentence triggered potential inadmissibility as a permanent resident.

He appealed the sentence based on fresh evidence regarding the immigration consequences.

The Crown conceded that a sentence of six months less a day would have been fit and that the fresh evidence should be admitted.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to six months less a day to obviate the unforeseen immigration consequences.

The applicant, a small craft distillery, applied for a declaration that the markup imposed by the LCBO on spirits sold at its on-site retail store was an unconstitutional tax under the Constitution Act, 1867.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the markup was a proprietary charge levied by the LCBO as the owner and commercial supplier of the spirits.

Alternatively, the court held that the markup was a contractual term freely agreed to by the applicant in exchange for the authorization to sell its products.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm offences and his sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter application to exclude a loaded handgun found during a warrantless search incident to arrest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the appellant based on corroborated information from multiple confidential informants.

The court also agreed with the trial judge's s. 24(2) Charter analysis admitting the evidence.

The sentence appeal was allowed on consent solely to increase the appellant's pre-trial custody credit to a 1.5 ratio in accordance with R. v. Summers, but was otherwise dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial interim release pending his appeal from convictions for assault causing bodily harm and forcible seizure, for which he was sentenced to three and a half years in prison.

The court found that while the appeal was not frivolous and the applicant would surrender into custody, his detention was necessary in the public interest.

The court emphasized the viciousness of the offences, the applicant's history of breaching court orders, and the risk he posed to public safety, particularly given outstanding charges for a similar group attack.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.