Matthew T. McGarvey

The appellant appealed his six-year sentence for two counts of dangerous driving causing death and one count of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

He argued the sentence was outside the acceptable range of two to five years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the trend toward more severe sentences for these offences to address general deterrence and protection of the public.

The court found the sentence fit given the appellant's aggressive driving, grossly unsafe manoeuvring, and lengthy driving record.

The appellant was acquitted at trial of impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

The summary conviction appeal court set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge gave insufficient reasons regarding the common sense inference that people consume alcohol at a normal pace.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the acquittals, holding that the trial judge had properly considered the inference but found insufficient evidence to assess its implications based on the Crown expert's report.

The appellant pleaded guilty to tax evasion and was fined $100,000.

After failing to pay, the Crown applied for a warrant of committal under s. 734.7 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that s. 734.7 could not apply retrospectively to an offence committed before the provision came into force.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 734.7 is a procedural enforcement mechanism rather than a substantive punishment, and therefore applies retrospectively.

The appellant appealed his conviction on the basis of an erroneous jury charge.

The trial judge instructed the jury that they had to decide whom they believed between the accused and an accomplice, and determine if the accused's version was true or could reasonably be true.

The Court of Appeal held that this instruction constituted reversible error, despite a proper W.D. charge also being given.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

Supplementary reasons adjusting the specific counts of the indictment on which the appellant was convicted, in order to reduce the totality of the sentences to five years imprisonment.

The court varied the sentences to two years concurrent on most counts, with three one-year consecutive sentences for use of a firearm, as agreed upon by counsel.

The appellants were convicted of multiple offences arising from three home invasion robberies.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an accomplice, supported by circumstantial and frail identification evidence.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in admitting the identification evidence, instructing the jury on confirmatory evidence, and defining reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's instructions or evidentiary rulings.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, and the ten-year sentence was reduced to five years, considering the appellant's youth, rehabilitation efforts, and the appropriate sentencing range for first offenders.