Michael Medeiros

The appellant appealed his convictions for driving while disqualified and assault, as well as his sentence.

The appellant admitted he was disqualified from driving, and the trial judge found he operated a motor vehicle in a residential driveway.

However, the Court of Appeal found there was no evidence that the driveway constituted a street, road, highway, or other public place within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

The appeal from the driving conviction was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The appeal against the assault conviction was dismissed as it was supported by ample evidence.

The sentence appeal regarding a probation condition was dismissed, with the court noting it should be addressed by application to the trial judge.

The appellant appealed his robbery convictions on the ground that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the frailties of eyewitness identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that while it would have been better to give the cautionary instruction, no request was made at trial.

The Court applied the curative proviso and dismissed the appeal, finding that the identification and circumstantial evidence against the appellant was overwhelming.

The appellant was detained by police investigating trespass and liquor offences.

An altercation ensued, leading to his arrest and the discovery of a handgun in his backpack.

At trial, the appellant argued his detention was arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter, but the trial judge dismissed the application, finding the police had reasonable suspicion.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the s. 9 ruling.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, concluding that the totality of the circumstances supported a reasonable suspicion that the appellant was engaged in trespass or liquor-related offences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of causing a disturbance after yelling obscenities at police officers who were arresting his girlfriend and father on his rural property.

The trial judge and summary conviction appeal judge found that his conduct contributed to raising tension at the scene.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the lower courts erred in law by failing to apply the governing principle that a disturbance requires an overtly manifested interference with the ordinary and customary use of a public place.

Emotional upset or raising tension is insufficient.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction set aside.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered after the trial judge excluded evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge gave thoughtful reasons for excluding the evidence and the Crown's appeal did not raise a question of law alone.