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.

During a murder investigation, police obtained a warrant to search a rooming house and found a sawed-off shotgun in the appellant's rented room.

The appellant was charged with weapons offences and argued the search violated his section 8 Charter rights.

The trial judge excluded the evidence, but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that there was sufficient credible and reliable evidence for the issuing justice to authorize the warrant for the appellant's room.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's instructions on eyewitness identification evidence and the Vetrovec warning regarding the main Crown witness were deficient.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the eyewitness identification evidence was not central to the Crown's case and its frailties were drawn to the jury's attention by defence counsel.

The Court also held that the Vetrovec instructions, read as a whole, adequately conveyed the danger of relying on the main witness's evidence without independent confirmatory evidence.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellants were convicted of possession of firearms found in a vehicle but acquitted of possessing over-capacity magazines.

They appealed their convictions on multiple grounds, including inconsistent verdicts, improper jury instructions, and Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the verdicts reconcilable and the jury instructions proper.

The court also dismissed one appellant's sentence appeal, upholding his nine-year sentence due to his persistent criminality and prior firearms convictions.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on weapons offences after the trial judge excluded a sawed-off shotgun and ammunition found in his rooming house basement apartment.

The evidence was discovered during the execution of a search warrant related to a murder investigation involving another tenant.

The trial judge found the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant was insufficient and intentionally confusing, violating the respondent's s. 8 Charter rights, and excluded the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge misapprehended and failed to consider relevant evidence.

The majority concluded that the cumulative facts in the ITO provided sufficient reasonable grounds for the authorizing justice to issue the warrant.

The acquittals were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant, a dual status offender under the authority of the Ontario Review Board, was convicted of manslaughter for killing a fellow inmate.

The Crown applied to have him declared a dangerous offender.

The sentencing judge found the statutory criteria met and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

On appeal, the appellant argued procedural flaws regarding notice and the Attorney General's consent, and that the judge erred in not exercising residual discretion given the Review Board's concurrent jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the procedural requirements were met and the appellant's high risk of violent recidivism justified the dangerous offender designation.