Niall Douglas Gilks

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession of cocaine and ecstasy, receiving a five-year sentence.

The drugs were found in his apartment following a gunfight, though he was acquitted of weapons charges and his role in the trafficking operation was unclear.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the five-year sentence disproportionate for the small amount of cocaine (14.87 grams) and held the trial judge erred by failing to consider the appellant's rehabilitation efforts and assistance to police.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence reduced to time served (14 months and nine days).

The appellant was convicted of importing cocaine and sentenced to five years and four months imprisonment.

Following the verdict, a juror approached court officers expressing fear of retaliation from other jurors.

The trial judge held a brief recorded meeting with the officers in the absence of the accused and counsel, later providing them with the transcript.

On appeal, the appellant argued this violated her right to be present at her trial under s. 650(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the initial meeting was not part of the trial and the trial judge acted appropriately.

The Court also rejected arguments regarding fresh evidence of jury impropriety, evidence of impecuniosity, jury instructions, and the sentence imposed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for smuggling heroin into a correctional facility.

The sole issue on the conviction appeal was the alleged lack of proof of continuity of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that continuity was established by direct and circumstantial evidence, and refused leave to appeal the sentence, holding that it was fit for the serious offence.

The appellant appealed a six-month custodial sentence for her role as a gardener in a marijuana grow operation.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh medical evidence indicating that the appellant's mental health had significantly deteriorated since sentencing and that further incarceration would cause extreme hardship.

The court allowed the appeal, finding that the principles of sentencing could be met by a conditional sentence.

The custodial sentence was set aside and replaced with an 18-month conditional sentence.