M. Minns

The Crown appealed a trial decision granting a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the Crown’s case on a charge of theft under $5,000.

The trial judge held that there was an absence of evidence against the accused and dismissed the charge.

On appeal, the court held that the trial judge misapplied the legal test governing motions for non-suit and improperly treated circumstantial evidence as mere speculation.

Applying the principles from Shephard and Arcuri, the court concluded that circumstantial evidence capable of supporting an inference of guilt met the low threshold required to send the case to the trier of fact.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for trial.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit.

The trial judge had found the Crown failed to prove that a proper breath demand under s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code had been made, noting the absence of explicit notebook entries and the officers’ lack of independent recollection of reading the demand.

On appeal, the Crown argued the trial judge erred in assessing the evidence and that a document prepared by the breath technician should have been treated as substantive proof of the demand.

The appeal court held that the argument regarding the document had not been advanced at trial and could not ground appellate intervention.

Applying the deferential standard of review for factual findings, the court concluded the evidence was capable of supporting the trial judge’s conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment followed by two years’ probation imposed for assault causing bodily harm under s. 267(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued the sentence was unduly harsh because the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, including rehabilitative efforts and sobriety, and gave excessive weight to the appellant’s youth record.

The court held that the sentencing judge carefully considered both mitigating and aggravating factors, including the deliberate nature of the assault, the serious injuries caused, and the appellant’s lengthy youth criminal record involving violent offences.

The court emphasized that appellate intervention is warranted only where a sentence is clearly unreasonable and noted that a sentence exceeding the Crown’s suggested range is not an error in principle.

The appellant failed to demonstrate that the sentence fell outside the appropriate range and the appeal was dismissed.