Linda A. Shin

The appellant was convicted by a jury of multiple offences arising from a home invasion, including robbery with a firearm and aggravated assault.

The primary evidence linking the appellant to the crime was a fingerprint found on a car near the scene, along with circumstantial evidence of the perpetrator's flight path.

On appeal, the appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable and the jury was improperly instructed on eyewitness identification.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fingerprint and circumstantial evidence were capable of supporting a reasonable inference of guilt, and the jury instructions on identification were adequate.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal court decision regarding whether a police officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make a breath demand.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, noting that appeals under s. 839(1) of the Criminal Code are confined to questions of law alone.

The court found the proposed ground was essentially a question of fact, did not raise issues of significance to the general administration of criminal justice, and was devoid of merit.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault against a child but acquitted of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching.

The trial judge rejected the complainant's evidence but convicted the appellant based on portions of his statement to the police.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the verdict unreasonable because the trial judge failed to consider the appellant's statement in its entirety, ignoring exculpatory portions.

The Court also found the conviction inconsistent with the acquittal on the sexual interference charge and held that the trial judge impermissibly drew an adverse inference from the appellant's silence during the police interview.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault against the thirteen-year-old daughter of his former partner.

The case turned entirely on credibility, with the trial judge rejecting the appellant's evidence based on three perceived inconsistencies.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence underlying all three bases for rejecting the appellant's testimony.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed in 2005.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to two years less five days, noting that had the trial judge and counsel been aware of the immigration consequences, the joint submission would have taken them into account.

The appellant appealed three convictions and his sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in accepting the daughter's evidence as corroboration of the complainant being pushed down the stairs, disbelieving his evidence regarding his knowledge of the assault, and finding his evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the conviction appeals.

Leave to appeal the sentence was denied.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault, sexual touching, and incest against the complainant, appealed his convictions and 3.5-year sentence.

He argued the trial judge's comments regarding the complainant's cross-examination demonstrated bias and that the trial judge improperly treated his lack of remorse as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's comments, when read in context, merely acknowledged the painful impact of the cross-examination on the complainant and did not indicate a predisposition.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge correctly recognized the absence of mitigation rather than treating lack of remorse as aggravating, and the appellant's health issues could be managed in custody.

The appellant appealed his conviction for pointing a firearm, arguing there was insufficient evidence for the trial judge to find the 'gun' was a 'firearm'.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence based on witness descriptions, the loading of the gun, the appellant's aggressive behaviour, and his threats to shoot the victims.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court judge upholding her conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the lower court judge thoroughly reviewed all arguments and provided compelling reasons.

Concluding that no issue of general importance was raised and the proposed issues lacked sufficient merit, the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.

The appellant pleaded guilty to criminal harassment against his former spouse and was sentenced to an effective 17 months' incarceration and 3 years' probation.

He appealed the sentence, arguing it was excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge committed no error in principle and appropriately weighed the aggravating factors, including a history of domestic violence and the profound fear instilled in the victims, against the mitigating factors.