Natalie M. Boivin

The appellants appealed their convictions for assaulting and resisting peace officers.

The charges arose from an altercation with police who had entered the property to investigate a noise complaint.

The appellants argued the police were unlawfully on the property, breached their section 8 Charter rights, and that the trial judge misapprehended evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the police had an implied licence to enter the property, the appellants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the trial judge's factual findings were reasonable.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for dangerous driving and the imposition of a suspended sentence with 12 months’ probation.

He argued that the trial judge improperly restricted cross-examination of the complainant regarding a four‑month delay in reporting, failed to conduct a proper W.(D.) credibility analysis, relied on inconsistent witness testimony, drew improper negative inferences, and imposed an unduly harsh sentence.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The court held that the proposed fresh evidence did not satisfy the test in Palmer, that the limitation on questioning was a strategic decision by defence counsel, and that the trial judge properly assessed credibility and the evidence as a whole.

The conviction and sentence were both upheld.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of driving 'over 80'.

The trial judge had stayed the charge, finding that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to make a breath demand because he questioned the respondent about an open beer bottle found in the vehicle after the respondent failed a roadside screening test, thereby breaching the respondent's right to counsel and demonstrating doubt about the test's accuracy.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in equating the officer's doubt about the screening test's accuracy with a lack of reasonable and probable grounds to continue the arrest and breath demand.

The stay of proceedings was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded prohibited firearm after police found a handgun in his bag during a drug search of a residence.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of two witnesses with criminal records, who testified that the bag and gun belonged to the accused.

The accused denied knowledge of the gun.

Applying the W.(D.) principles and considering the Vetrovec warnings, the court rejected the accused's testimony, accepted the Crown witnesses as credible, and found the accused guilty.