Nadia Thomas

The appellants appealed their sentence for aggravated assault.

During pre-trial discussions, the trial judge indicated he would impose 12 to 15 months' imprisonment on a guilty plea if the pre-sentence report was positive.

The report was positive, and the appellants pleaded guilty.

However, the trial judge sentenced them to two years less a day, having forgotten his earlier position.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding an appearance of unfairness, and reduced the sentence to 15 months plus three years' probation.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for welfare fraud.

The Court of Appeal found it was open to the trial judge to conclude that the appellant had undisclosed assets and income, and that his false reporting allowed him to continue receiving welfare.

The conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The indictment was amended on consent to charge fraud over $1,000 to conform to the Criminal Code at the relevant time.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for sexually assaulting his three young granddaughters.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the evidence of the three complainants.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to specifically instruct the jury that a finding of collusion among the complainants would diminish their credibility, and by improperly addressing Crown counsel's remarks regarding the absence of medical evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, upholding the total sentence of 8 years' imprisonment given the egregious breach of trust, the severity of the assaults, and the appellant's prior conviction for a similar offence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving, failing to comply with an undertaking, and threatening to damage property.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by assessing the complainant's credibility based solely on demeanour, failing to analyze significant inconsistencies in her evidence, and inappropriately considering the evidence globally across all counts.

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

The appellant appealed his conviction for harassment and his sentence.

He argued the conviction resulted from a violation of a peace bond that should not have been issued, and that his sentence of 12 months plus three years probation was illegal because it was added to a three-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, noting the peace bond had to be observed while outstanding.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge had credited pre-sentence custody and imposed a lawful sentence of 12 months plus three years probation.