Marie Comiskey

The appellant appealed her convictions for drug trafficking and her 4-year custodial sentence.

She argued the trial judge erred in dismissing her application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter by mischaracterizing periods of delay, including those related to COVID-19 and a missing Information.

The Court of Appeal found no reviewable error in the trial judge's attribution of delay to the defence and exceptional circumstances.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 4-year sentence was below the established range for mid-level cocaine trafficking and the trial judge made no error in principle in rejecting a conditional sentence.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review a motion judge's decision dismissing his request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal for convictions in 2020 and 2022.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's application of the test for an extension of time, noting the lack of evidence of an intention to appeal within the timeline and the lack of an adequate explanation for the delay.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a 5-year sentence for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the sentencing judge failed to sufficiently account for harsh presentence custody conditions and made other errors.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge correctly considered the harsh conditions as a mitigating factor, resulting in a sentence at the low end of the range.

However, the court agreed with the appellant that he was improperly denied enhanced R. v. Summers credit for a 32-day period due to a missed court appearance, as his explanation was unchallenged.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted an additional 16 days of presentence custody credit.

The appellant, David Griffith, appealed his convictions for possession for the purposes of trafficking and possessing proceeds of crime, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence obtained in breach of his Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(b)).

The trial judge found breaches but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, applying the *Grant* analysis.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the *Grant* analysis, specifically regarding the lawfulness of the pat-down search incident to investigative detention and the application of discoverability.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

Mr. Clare appealed his conviction, arguing his guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

He had pleaded guilty to possession of hydromorphone for trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the plea inquiry transcript and trial counsel's notes, finding that the plea was informed and voluntary.

The court concluded that the appellant had not met the high threshold required to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown sought directions regarding solicitor-client privilege over financial documents (cheques and statements of account) obtained from financial institutions during a fraud investigation against the defendants.

The court ruled that cheques to or from a lawyer/law firm are presumptively not privileged when obtained from a financial institution, as they reflect transactions, not communications.

Even if presumed privileged, that presumption was rebutted in this case.

For legal invoices, the court ordered that copies be securely retained until the conclusion of proceedings or destroyed, and that a vetted copy of seized records be made for disclosure.

The appellant appealed his convictions for importing heroin, possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and possessing proceeds of crime over $5,000, and sought leave to appeal his global sentence of 12 years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's refusal of a mistrial due to non-disclosure of alternate suspects, the handling of eyewitness identification evidence (applying the curative proviso), the admission of police opinion evidence, or the instructions on post-offence conduct.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the 12-year global sentence fit given the seriousness and quantity of the drugs involved.

The appellant, convicted of drug trafficking, firearm, and weapons offences, appealed his convictions, arguing that seized evidence should be excluded due to Charter violations (ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)).

The trial judge found violations but erred by not conducting a s. 24(2) analysis, believing no causal link existed between the breach and evidence discovery.

The Court of Appeal conducted the s. 24(2) analysis, balancing the severity of breaches, their impact on the appellant's Charter interests, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

Despite serious breaches, the evidence was admitted due to the minimal impact on the appellant's rights and the significant public interest in adjudicating serious firearm and drug offences.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed on the respondent, Joern Scholz, for fraud over $5,000.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in principle by imposing a sentence outside the established range for major frauds and by failing to follow the proper analytical process for conditional sentences.

The court also found that the trial judge improperly considered the conduct of an OSC investigator as a mitigating factor for the convicted offence.

The appeal was allowed, the conditional sentence was set aside, and a three-year term of imprisonment was imposed.

The appellant appealed his drug-related convictions arising from a search warrant execution at his residence.

The trial judge found a breach of the appellant's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel without delay but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge committed errors of principle in her s. 24(2) analysis by: (1) attenuating the seriousness of the breach based on police compliance with the duty not to question before counsel contact; and (2) treating the impact of the breach as neutral because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the delay prevented meaningful consultation with counsel.

The Court of Appeal concluded the s. 10(b) breach was serious and its impact significant, and that exclusion of the evidence was warranted to maintain the integrity of the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in finding exclusive possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia seized from a bedroom rented by the appellant.

The appellant argued that the trial judge's finding of exclusive possession was undermined by the landlord's evidence that another tenant (referred to as the "tall skinny guy") may have entered the room.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge's inference of knowledge and control based on temporal exclusive possession was reasonable given the evidence, including the appellant's rental of the room, the nature of items found, police surveillance observations, and the lack of evidence that the other tenant was present near the time of seizure.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as dependent on a successful conviction appeal.

Richard Briscoe was found guilty by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and pleaded guilty to failing to comply with bail conditions.

The court accepted a joint submission for a global sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, with credit for 120 days of pre-trial custody.

The reasons for sentence extensively discuss the intersection of criminal law and drug treatment, emphasizing rehabilitation as a paramount sentencing objective for drug-addicted offenders, while also balancing denunciation and deterrence.

The court explored therapeutic jurisprudence and problem-solving approaches in sentencing, noting the accused's long history of addiction and criminal behaviour.

The appellant sought to appeal his conviction and sentence from the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant abandoned the appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The court also vacated any victim fine surcharge that may have been part of the appellant's sentence.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The conviction followed police surveillance, an undercover purchase, and searches of the appellant's vehicle and apartment.

The appellant appealed, challenging the validity of the apartment search warrant and alleging various Charter violations during the police takedown and strip searches.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding sufficient grounds for the search warrant independent of evidence obtained from an allegedly unlawful strip search, and finding no Charter violations that would warrant a stay of proceedings.

The appellant appealed his conviction for importation and possession of over 100 kilograms of heroin and possession of approximately $650,000 as proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case was based on evidence from a controlled delivery of heroin, authorized searches of storage units, and testimony from a courier.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: inadequate jury instructions regarding identification evidence, improper qualification of an expert witness regarding FINTRAC reports, and improper curtailment of cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding the trial judge's rulings were appropriate and the Crown's case was overwhelming.

Appeals from conviction and sentence in a complex fraud case involving a scheme to divert millions of dollars from the Canadian Revenue Agency.

The appellants were convicted of fraud over $5,000 following a four-month jury trial.

The appellants challenged their convictions on multiple grounds including delay, issue estoppel, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions.

The Crown appealed the quantum of the fine in lieu of forfeiture imposed on one appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals and the sentence appeals, but granted leave to appeal on the sentencing issues.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of crack cocaine for the purposes of trafficking and his sentence of 18 months imprisonment.

The conviction appeal challenged whether police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and search the appellant.

The trial judge found such grounds existed based on police observations of the appellant's vehicle making three stops at different locations within 15 minutes, with interactions at each location involving known drug users.

The sentence appeal challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence provision under the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act.

Both appeals were dismissed.