McKinnon

The appellant was convicted of producing marijuana after police found a grow operation in a house.

When the appellant pulled into the driveway, an officer detained him and asked if he lived there without first informing him of the reasons for his detention or his right to counsel.

The appellant admitted he lived there.

The trial judge found a Charter breach but admitted the statement.

The Court of Appeal held that the failure to promptly inform the appellant of the reasons for his detention violated s. 10(a) of the Charter.

The admission of the conscriptive statement rendered the trial unfair.

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

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder based on a DNA match from a saliva sample he provided to police while on post-release supervision.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred by applying the balance of probabilities standard to determine whether he voluntarily consented to providing the sample, asserting that the common law confessions rule standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt should apply.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the common law confessions rule is confined to statements due to reliability concerns, and the balance of probabilities standard remains appropriate for assessing consent to bodily samples.

The Crown appealed an order quashing a committal for second degree murder and substituting a committal for manslaughter in the death of a 34-month-old child.

The reviewing judge had found insufficient evidence of the subjective intent required for murder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the reviewing judge erred by looking at the medical evidence in isolation and failing to consider the cumulative effect of the evidence, which could support an inference of the requisite intent.

The committal for second degree murder was restored.

The appellant appealed his convictions for uttering threats and assault, as well as his sentence of two years' imprisonment.

He argued the conviction for uttering threats was unreasonable because his father, the target of the threats, testified he was not afraid.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, noting other witnesses testified the appellant was loud, upset, and had been drinking, and the trial judge found the father was minimizing his evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was not unfit given the appellant's history and criminal record.

The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery with a knife after holding a knife to the throat of a 70-year-old man.

He was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment in addition to 12 months' credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing it was excessive and that the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to psychiatric evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit given the serious nature of the offence and the appellant's lengthy criminal record.

The appellant pleaded guilty to five counts of robbery and was sentenced to 35 months' imprisonment concurrent on each charge.

He appealed the sentence, seeking a variation to avoid losing his right to appeal a deportation order under s. 64(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which applies to sentences of two years or more for a single offence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, varying the sentence to 23 months concurrent on four counts and 12 months consecutive on the fifth count, maintaining the global sentence of 35 months while preserving the appellant's right to appeal his deportation.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter, possession of stolen property, and possession of burglary tools, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his sections 8 and 9 Charter application and provided inadequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the police had grounds for an investigative detention based on a radio broadcast describing the suspects and their vehicle.

The court also upheld the finding of reasonable and probable grounds for arrest after an officer observed cartons of cigarettes in plain view in the vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence after being convicted of sexual assault, choking, unlawful confinement, uttering threats, assault, and failing to comply with a probation order.

The sentencing judge found the appellant to be a long-term offender and imposed a 9-year determinate sentence for the sexual assault and related offences, plus consecutive sentences for other offences and a 10-year supervision order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the sentence appropriate given the appellant's extensive record and the horrific circumstances of the offences.

The appellant appealed his total sentence of 6.5 years imprisonment for breaking and entering, dangerous driving, possession of a stolen vehicle, and other related offences.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing his prior record, ignored mitigating factors, and imposed a disproportionate sentence that offended the totality principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant's lengthy criminal record of 33 prior break and enters and three prior police chases.

The court found the sentence was at the upper end of the range but fit and did not offend the totality principle.