L. Bolton

During a criminal trial, the Crown applied under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code for two witnesses to testify by videoconference.

The first witness, a police officer on vacation, was permitted to testify from a remote courthouse on consent.

The second witness, a civilian with a high-risk pregnancy, was permitted to testify from her home over the defence's objection that she should testify from a formal setting.

The court found that the solemnity of the proceedings and security concerns could be adequately addressed while allowing her to testify from home, minimizing health risks.

The appellant appealed his total sentence of 6.5 years imprisonment for breaking and entering, dangerous driving, possession of a stolen vehicle, and other related offences.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing his prior record, ignored mitigating factors, and imposed a disproportionate sentence that offended the totality principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant's lengthy criminal record of 33 prior break and enters and three prior police chases.

The court found the sentence was at the upper end of the range but fit and did not offend the totality principle.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter, possession of stolen property, and possession of burglary tools, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his sections 8 and 9 Charter application and provided inadequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the police had grounds for an investigative detention based on a radio broadcast describing the suspects and their vehicle.

The court also upheld the finding of reasonable and probable grounds for arrest after an officer observed cartons of cigarettes in plain view in the vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed.