Thomas Galligan

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence following a jury trial for a sexual offence involving an alleged position of trust.

The court rejected challenges to the jury charge, including references to a non-existent letter, the instruction on position of trust, comments on the failure to testify, and the distinction between credibility and reliability.

The conviction appeal was dismissed because no prejudice was shown and the charge, read as a whole, was adequate.

The sentence appeal was allowed because the trial judge placed undue emphasis on the criminal record and the custodial sentence was disproportionate to the relatively minor factual circumstances of the offence.

The appellant challenged his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with an excessive blood alcohol level on the basis that police exceeded their authority under s. 48 of the Highway Traffic Act, resulting in arbitrary detention contrary to s. 9 of the Charter.

After a speeding and weaving stop, the officer directed the appellant from his vehicle to the police cruiser because of an overwhelming smell of cologne, uncertainty about the source of any alcohol odour, the presence of a passenger, and the officer's cold.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 48 authorized reasonable investigative steps at the roadside to determine whether grounds existed for a breath demand, and that the brief movement to the cruiser was minimally intrusive and reasonable in the circumstances.

The detention was lawful, the resulting evidence was properly admitted, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence for breach of probation arising from the issuance and service of civil court proceedings against the complainants.

The court held that, given the substance of the statement of claim and the surrounding background, the proceedings were a communication with the complainants intended to further harass them, and therefore constituted a breach of the probation order.

The court also rejected an abuse of process argument based on the re-laying of the charge after a simple mistake, finding the procedure entirely appropriate.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for keeping a common bawdy house arising from the operation of a commercial house of domination offering sadomasochistic services.

The court held that the trial judge reasonably found the erotica sessions were primarily sexual in nature and constituted prostitution because they involved lewd acts for payment for the sexual gratification of clients on a frequent and habitual basis.

The court upheld the admission of a videotape corroborating the commercial services, agreed that most of the proposed expert evidence was irrelevant or insufficiently reliable under the governing expert evidence framework, and found that the search-related Charter breaches did not justify a stay.

The appeal was dismissed.