Mariya Yakusheva

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal court decision that upheld a trial conviction.

The appellant argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons and erred in assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding the case raised no legal issues of significance to the general administration of justice and that the trial judge had given extensive, well-reasoned findings.

The appellant was convicted of firearms and drug trafficking offences after police found him in an apartment with drugs and a loaded handgun.

At trial, the judge refused to allow the defence to call a third-party witness who was expected to testify that the drugs and gun belonged to him, ruling there was an insufficient nexus between the witness and the offences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge misapplied the test for alternate suspect evidence.

Where the defence proposes to call direct evidence from another person taking responsibility for the crimes charged, that proposed evidence itself constitutes a sufficient nexus.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for homicide, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of a witness's guilty plea to manslaughter, refusing to put self-defence to the jury, and admitting a prior statement as a threat.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, noting there was no air of reality to the self-defence claim.

The court also upheld the 12-year parole ineligibility period, finding it was not manifestly unreasonable.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of the respondents, arguing the trial judge erred in finding a breach of section 8 of the Charter and excluding evidence under section 24(2).

The trial judge had excised misleading information from the Information to Obtain (ITO) and concluded the remaining facts could not support the search warrant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that even after removing the misstatements, there remained sufficient reliable evidence connecting the respondents and the searched premises to the robbery to justify issuing the warrant.

A new trial was ordered.