Michael Lacy

The appellants, a police officer and an employee of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, were convicted of defrauding an elderly man's estate using a fabricated will.

They appealed their convictions and sentences, arguing errors in the trial judge's refusal to stay proceedings for a Charter breach, admission of after-the-fact conduct evidence regarding the concealment of their affair, and an unbalanced jury charge.

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

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and arson in relation to the death of his wife.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the hearsay utterances of a co-accused, obtained during a Mr. Big operation, who confessed to the murder and claimed the appellant hired him.

The co-accused refused to testify at trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting the hearsay evidence and in his instructions to the jury regarding the hearsay evidence, bad character evidence, and the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's threshold reliability analysis or jury instructions.

Summary conviction appeal from convictions for sexual interference and voyeurism arising from incidents at a shopping mall involving a 15-year-old complainant and surreptitious recordings of teenage girls.

The appellant argued that the trial judge relied on improper assumptions about innocent behaviour, misapprehended the complainant's evidence about the nature of the touching, and reversed the burden of proof in her credibility analysis.

The court rejected all conviction grounds, holding that the impugned findings were open on the record, the complainant's evidence was assessed contextually, and the reasons disclosed substantive compliance with the W.D. framework.

The appeal from sentence succeeded only in part because the 20-year SOIRA order exceeded the statutory maximum for summary conviction offences; the order was reduced to 10 years but otherwise upheld.