Marc Rosenberg

The Crown appealed a Summary Conviction Appeal Court (SCAC) decision that overturned the accused's 'over 80' conviction and ordered a new trial.

The SCAC judge had ruled the trial judge's reasons inadequate because the trial judge failed to determine which of two police officers made the breath demand, as both officers testified the other had done so.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the SCAC judge erred by adding an unnecessary element of proof.

The trial judge's finding that a valid demand was made was sufficient under the Criminal Code, and the accused's compliance with the demand provided a complete answer absent a Charter challenge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and his sentence.

He argued that he did not possess a needle during the incident and that his trial was unfair.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, noting that the trial judge accepted the victim's evidence regarding the needle and that the record did not support the claim of an unfair trial.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge gave appropriate weight to the appellant's aboriginal heritage, difficult childhood, and addiction issues, finding no error in principle and that the sentence was fit.