Miriam Fahim

The appellant, Ali Mankal, appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drug.

The appeal centered on whether the trial judge materially misapprehended the Drug Recognition Expert's (DRE) opinion evidence regarding the cause of pinpoint pupils.

The defence argued that the impairment, including pinpoint pupils, could be attributed to a concussion, while the trial judge concluded it was solely due to drug impairment, relying on a misinterpretation of the DRE's testimony.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's misapprehension of this critical evidence played an essential part in the conviction, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault alleged to have occurred between December 30, 2018 and January 6, 2019.

Both the defendant and complainant were hospital employees.

The defendant brought a motion under sections 278.3 and O'Connor of the Criminal Code seeking production of documents held by the hospital and a workplace investigator relating to the complainant's allegations and the investigation conducted.

The court determined whether the documents constituted "records" under section 278.1 of the Criminal Code and whether they should be produced to the court for review.

The court addressed the definition of "records," the reasonable expectation of privacy, the exemption for records made by persons responsible for investigation or prosecution, and the test for likely relevance under section 278.5.

The appellant, Guesly Gemelus, appealed his convictions for threatening to cause death and disobeying a court order.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's failure to adequately consider material evidence impugning the complainant's credibility, specifically her animus towards the appellant, and the insufficiency of reasons for judgment.

The appellate court found that the trial judge failed to address the defence's theory regarding the complainant's motivation and animus, and did not sufficiently explain why this evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.

This constituted a palpable and overriding error, undermining appellate review.

The appeal was allowed, convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.