Margaret Bojanowska

The appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful confinement, raising four issues including the admission of out-of-court videotaped statements, eyewitness identification frailties, failure to establish the elements of the offence, and the trial judge's treatment of a witness's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the admission of the statements under the Khelawon threshold reliability test.

The court also upheld the trial judge's acceptance of the eyewitness identification and his decision to accept the witness's evidence in chief over cross-examination due to the appellant's outburst in court.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his convictions for criminal harassment and uttering threats, arguing violations of his s. 11(b) Charter rights, ineffective assistance of counsel, and trial judge errors.

On the day of trial, the appellant appeared without his lawyer, refused substitute counsel, and elected to proceed unrepresented without bringing a s. 11(b) application despite the trial judge's warnings and offer of an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal granted leave only on the s. 11(b) issue but dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had received legal advice, was aware of his options, and chose to proceed despite warnings.

The appellant appealed his sentence for possession of a weapon, arguing the sentencing judge placed too much weight on his criminal record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant had 62 convictions over 14 years.

The sentencing judge properly considered mitigating factors, but the combination of the crimes and the lengthy record made the sentence fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment with a 14-year parole ineligibility period.

He argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on intoxication, capacity to form intent, after-the-fact conduct, and provocation.

The Court of Appeal found the jury instructions were adequate and that the trial judge properly related the evidence to the issues of intent and foreseeability.

The court also upheld the 14-year parole ineligibility period as not clearly unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.