Michelle Campbell

The appellant sought leave to appeal sentence for manslaughter arising from the fatal stabbing of his common law spouse in the context of prior domestic abuse and a no-association order.

The Court of Appeal held that, although it did not agree with the sentencing judge's use of the phrase 'aggravated manslaughter', that terminology did not lead to error and the 12-year penitentiary sentence was fit on the facts.

The court also declined to interfere with the one-for-one credit granted for 632 days of pre-sentence custody, noting the issue had not been raised at trial or in the factum.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for an unprovoked and brutal aggravated assault, arguing it was manifestly unfit and failed to give proper effect to denunciation and deterrence.

The sentencing judge had effectively imposed a low penitentiary sentence after giving credit for pre-sentence custody, emphasizing the principle of rehabilitation to give the respondent one last chance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion regarding the respondent's rehabilitative prospects and seeing no basis for appellate intervention.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed on the respondent for historical sexual offences against his foster daughter.

The offences occurred over 35 years prior, resulting in the complainant's pregnancy at age 15.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge made several errors in principle, including improperly relying on an unproven finding about when the respondent learned of the pregnancy, misapplying the framework for conditional sentences, and inappropriately treating health issues and social stigma as mitigating factors.

The Court held the sentence was manifestly unfit given the profound breach of trust and the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The appeal was allowed and a three-year custodial sentence was imposed, with one year of credit given for time served under the conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference against a child complainant, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge misapprehended the evidence due to inconsistencies in the child's testimony.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the common sense approach to child witnesses or her credibility findings.

The appeal was dismissed.

On consent, the appellant sought leave to appeal and to admit fresh evidence concerning the value of the property underlying a possession of property obtained by crime conviction.

The court granted leave and admitted the fresh evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal but amended the indictment to substitute a conviction for possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000.

The sentence remained unchanged.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a three-year sentence for sexual assault and parent procuring sexual activity.

The court rejected arguments that the sentencing judge underemphasized the absence of a criminal record, failed to give adequate weight to personal frailties, misapprehended the procurement offence, or failed to account properly for family hardship.

Emphasizing the appellant's position of trust and authority as a parent and the extended period of offending, the court found no sentencing error and held that the sentence was fit.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing the trial judge engaged in circular reasoning when rejecting his defence that another person committed the robbery.

The trial judge had relied on the size of the jeans worn by the appellant upon arrest to conclude the alternate suspect could not have worn the jeans seen in the security video, tacitly assuming the jeans in the video were the ones seized from the appellant.

The Court of Appeal found this reasoning circular and noted the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding whether the jeans could have come from the alternate suspect's apartment.

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

Crown sentence appeal arising from a guilty plea to sexual interference involving repeated digital penetration and one act of unprotected intercourse with a 14-year-old who was a close friend of the offender's daughter.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge misapplied the Gladue framework by failing to connect the offender's Aboriginal background to his moral culpability or the commission of the offence, and by placing undue emphasis on background factors unsupported by the record.

The court further held that the sentence failed to reflect the gravity of repeated, exploitative sexual abuse of a vulnerable child by an adult in a position of trust, and inadequately emphasized denunciation and deterrence.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and the sentence was increased from eight months to three years' imprisonment, less credit for post-conviction custody.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The appellant claimed self-defence, alleging the complainant threatened him with a screwdriver during a workplace altercation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was entitled to accept the testimony of independent witnesses who saw no threatening behaviour by the complainant before the appellant threw a hammer at him.

The court held the verdict was not unreasonable.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing his actions did not constitute a criminal attempt.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge failed to distinguish between the actus reus and mens rea of an attempt.

The Court held that the appellant's inquiries, lacking any follow-up conduct, did not go beyond mere preparation and therefore the actus reus for an attempt was not established.

The appeal was allowed, convictions quashed, and acquittals entered.

The appellant appealed his sentence of nine years' imprisonment and his designation as a long-term offender following guilty pleas to aggravated assault and other offences arising from a domestic stabbing.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in designating the appellant a long-term offender because she failed to find that his pattern of aggressive behaviour was 'persistent' under the dangerous offender criteria, and failed to separately analyze whether there was a substantial risk to reoffend.

The long-term offender designation was set aside, but the nine-year sentence for the predicate offences was affirmed as fit.

The appellant appealed the period of parole ineligibility imposed as part of her sentence, which was the product of a joint submission.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held that the period of parole ineligibility was not clearly unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual interference involving a nine-year-old developmentally delayed child.

He argued the verdict was unreasonable and sought to introduce fresh evidence alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments sound and rejecting the ineffective assistance claim.

The sentence appeal was allowed only to the extent of adding a probationary condition restricting the appellant's contact with children, on consent of the parties.

The young person appealed his conviction for robbery of a fast food delivery driver.

The sole issue at trial was identification, which the trial judge determined based on video surveillance, clothing seized upon arrest, and cell phone records.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's reliance on the video surveillance or her application of the Nikolovski principle to compare the accused with the person in the video.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed her sentence for two bank robberies, seeking to convert the custodial portion into a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge reasonably balanced the appellant's personal circumstances with the seriousness of the offences, which involved planning and threats of violence.

The sentence imposed was deemed fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction for resisting arrest, arguing the trial judge erred in finding a lawful arrest without addressing whether the police used excessive force.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's actions of pulling his hands and hiding them under his stomach constituted forceful opposition.

The court also held that because the issue of excessive force was not argued at trial as it was on appeal, the trial judge did not err in failing to specifically address it.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by finding his statement to the police was inconsistent with his testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was open to the trial judge to find the statement inconsistent, especially given the appellant's own testimony concerning its interpretation.

The court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact.

The appellant, an aboriginal offender, appealed his sentence of 3 years and 4 months for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in applying Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge incorrectly stated that Gladue considerations are less applicable to more serious offences, he ultimately applied the principles correctly and took the relevant factors into account.

A fresh Gladue report did not materially add to the information before the trial judge.

The appeal was dismissed given the seriousness of the offence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended his evidence when rejecting his testimony.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's conclusions regarding the appellant's credibility—specifically his characterization of his criminal record and his reasons for calling his mother—were supported by the transcript.

The trial judge's factual findings concerning knowledge and control of scales, cocaine residue, and guns were open to him on the record.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal decision that had upheld his conviction.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeal did not raise a pure question of law.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the appeal lacked the apparent merit necessary to warrant a second level of appellate review.