Michael Karl Edward Ellison

The appellant appealed his sentence for robbery, arguing the sentencing judge erred by departing from a joint sentencing position.

The appellant had pleaded guilty, and after the judge expressed concern with an initial joint position, a new, higher joint position was proposed.

The sentencing judge rejected both and imposed a significantly higher sentence.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the high threshold for rejecting a joint submission to the final proposed sentence.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to reflect the final joint position.

The defendant challenged a telewarrant used to search his residence, alleging a Section 8 Charter violation due to an incorrect address on the warrant and a missing appendix.

The court found the warrant facially invalid due to the address error, constituting a Section 8 breach.

However, applying the R. v. Grant test, the court declined to exclude the seized evidence under Section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the police acted in good faith and the evidence was reliable and critical to the Crown's case.

The sub-facial attack on the warrant was rejected, and a judicial summary of redacted ITO portions was deemed adequate.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on two young persons, arguing it was manifestly unfit.

The Crown also sought to establish judicial criteria for the grant of a reprimand by a youth court judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was legally available and that the sentencing judge properly considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the offenders.

Both young persons had undertaken substantial rehabilitative measures independently.

The applicant sought an adjournment of his criminal trial due to defence counsel's unforeseen injury.

The court granted the adjournment, vacating the June 12, 2017 trial date and rescheduling it for December 11, 2017.

The ruling also provided practice points regarding the proper procedure for adjournment applications under Rule 26, emphasizing the need for a proper record and specific information in affidavits, particularly in light of the R. v. Jordan decision and the SCJ Provincial Practice Direction.