Mark C. Halfyard

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on how to treat a witness's gratuitous personal opinions and the manner in which he gave evidence.

The appellant also argued that the Crown asked an improper question during re-examination about a trip to Windsor shortly after the killing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury instructions were correct and the re-examination question was proper given the defence's cross-examination.

The appellant appealed his conviction for fraud, arguing the trial judge erred in failing to find he had a colour of right defence.

The trial judge found the appellant forged time sheets to obtain payments from a company, despite the appellant's honest belief that the company was liable to him in damages for breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the mens rea test for fraud from R. v. Théroux.

The Court held that the appellant's personal belief of entitlement to damages did not negative the mens rea, as he intentionally committed a deceitful act knowing it could cause deprivation.

The appellant was convicted of assault and assault with a weapon following an altercation at a bar.

At trial, her counsel failed to request a booking videotape that showed her wearing flat-soled boots, contradicting a key Crown witness who testified the assailant wore high heels.

The summary conviction appeal judge refused to admit the videotape as fresh evidence, finding it would not have affected the verdict.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, admitted the fresh evidence, and ordered a new trial, holding that the videotape was highly relevant to the reliability of the Crown's identification evidence and the appellant's credibility.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that his arrest was unlawful and the drugs seized should be excluded.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the initial arrest was unlawful, the police were justified in conducting an investigative detention and protective pat-down search.

This search would have inevitably led to the discovery of a digital scale and a soft bulge, which, combined with the appellant's prior record, would have provided reasonable grounds for a lawful arrest and search.

The impact on the appellant's Charter rights was minimal, and the evidence was admissible.

The Crown appealed the sentences imposed on two youthful offenders who pled guilty to a home invasion robbery.

One respondent received two years less a day and the other received 21 months, both followed by three years' probation.

The trial judge emphasized the respondents' significant rehabilitative progress while on strict bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the sentences were lenient, the trial judge made no error in principle and the sentences were not manifestly unfit given the strong prospects for rehabilitation.

The appellants were convicted of second degree murder following the beating death of a young man by a group of attackers.

They appealed their convictions on multiple grounds, including the admission of after-the-fact conduct, the voluntariness of police statements, alleged Charter breaches, jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, finding no reviewable errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and concluding that trial counsel provided effective representation.

The appellant was convicted of fraud and appealed on two grounds: the trial judge's refusal to allow him to testify about conversations with a business associate regarding NSF cheques, and the Crown's undisclosed jury vetting process using police databases.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in excluding the evidence as hearsay, the error caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice because the jury had sufficient other evidence to assess the appellant's state of mind.

Regarding the jury vetting, the Court held that while the Crown breached its disclosure obligations and the police misused databases, the non-disclosure did not impact the reliability of the verdict or the overall fairness of the trial process.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to traffic and import cocaine, arguing the trial judge failed to provide a limiting instruction on bad character evidence and gave an insufficient Vetrovec warning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the defence made a tactical decision to put bad character in issue and specifically requested that no limiting instruction be given.

The court also found the Vetrovec warning was sufficient to alert the jury to the dangers of relying on the unsavoury Crown witnesses.

The young person appealed her sentence of four months closed custody and two months open custody for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The Court of Appeal found the original sentence was fit at the time it was imposed.

However, based on remarkable fresh evidence demonstrating the young person's strict compliance with restrictions, excellent educational progress, and strong family support over the past two years, the court allowed the appeal to permit her to continue her rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and drug offences, as well as his three-year custodial sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred by refusing to sever the charges, admitting improper confidential informer hearsay evidence, and failing to credit banked pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the framework for severance, the evidence in question was not hearsay, and there was no proven link between the banked pre-trial custody and the current charges.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended material evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's reasons and noting that she approached the appellant's evidence from a common sense perspective, ultimately finding parts of his story incredible.

The Court declined to revisit the trial judge's factual findings.

The appellant appealed their sentence, arguing that the global sentence was unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence entirely fit given the appellant's substantial criminal record, the seriousness of the fraud offences, and the multiplicity of breach of probation offences.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing that statements he made to police should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to a s. 10(b) breach.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the statements were taken in violation of s. 10(b).

However, the Court held that even if the statements were excluded, the verdicts would necessarily have been the same, as the appellant was the sole occupant of his own car, and a loaded gun was found on the back seat underneath his coat.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the jury verdict was unreasonable due to insufficient evidence of his knowledge or control of the drugs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that circumstantial evidence—including the drugs' plain view on the vehicle's centre console, their proximity to the appellant, and the presence of cash and cell phones—provided a sufficient basis for a properly instructed jury to infer knowledge and control.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The Crown appealed a non-custodial sentence imposed on the respondent.

The Court of Appeal noted that while incarceration is typically warranted for this type of offence absent special circumstances, the respondent's exemplary conduct during the eight months on her conditional sentence, including making restitution and securing employment, meant that incarcerating her now would not serve the interests of justice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the global sentence of one year in custody imposed for extortion and multiple acts of voyeurism.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle by the sentencing judge and held that the sentence was fit.

The sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference involving a 13-year-old complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility, misapplied the law regarding inconsistencies in a child witness's testimony, and engaged in conduct that rendered the trial unfair.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof, gave cogent reasons for rejecting defence evidence, and, despite some ill-chosen comments, did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences after a handgun was found in his pocket during a traffic stop.

He argued the stop under the Highway Traffic Act was a ruse for an unconstitutional criminal investigation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the stop was legitimate and not a pretext.

The court also dismissed an application to admit fresh evidence, finding it failed the Palmer test.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was charged with sexual assault and other offences.

Due to late disclosure of forensic evidence by the Crown and subsequent scheduling delays, the trial was set for 30 months after the charges were laid.

The trial judge stayed the proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, but the Court of Appeal set aside the stay.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the stay, finding that the delay far exceeded the Morin guidelines, was largely attributable to the Crown, and caused prejudice to the appellant.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that a failure to adequately investigate and the loss of video tapes violated his section 7 Charter rights, and that the jury charge was inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to show actual prejudice from the missing evidence, as required by R. v. La.

The court also held that the jury charge was adequate, noting the speculative nature of the missing evidence and the trial judge's use of the standard Lifchus charge.