Nick Devlin

The appellants appealed a decision of a single judge of the Court of Appeal refusing to delay their trial pending the hearing of an unperfected appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the administration of justice would not be served by further delay.

The Court noted the Crown's undertaking to consent to the continuation of bail on the same terms if the appellants are convicted and appeal, which mitigated the prejudice argument.

The appellant appealed his sentence for an illegal entry offence.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge was entitled to impose the maximum penalty given the pattern of the appellant's crimes and association with illegal entries.

Although the sentencing judge did not clearly enunciate the credit given for pretrial custody, the total sentence imposed was fit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence for a residential marijuana grow operation.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in principle by categorically removing a conditional sentence as a possible sentence for this type of offence.

The court set aside the original sentence and, balancing the appellant's individual circumstances with the need for deterrence and denunciation, substituted a sentence of 90 days to be served intermittently, followed by the probation terms imposed by the trial judge.

The appellant was charged with possession of marijuana after a small amount was found in her purse during a routine security screening at the entrance of a courthouse.

She argued that the warrantless search violated her rights under s. 8 of the Charter.

The trial judge and summary conviction appeal judge both rejected this argument and convicted her.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the search was authorized by law, the law was reasonable given the vital objective of ensuring courthouse safety, and the search was carried out in a reasonable manner.

The appellant appealed a total sentence of nine years imposed after being found guilty of 26 charges, including possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, possession of counterfeit money, and firearms offences while subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was fit and not outside the range for the serious offences committed.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The respondent, a young black single mother, was convicted of importing 733.4 grams of cocaine.

The trial judge imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, citing systemic racial and gender bias, delay, and the risk of deportation as mitigating factors.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in adjusting the cocaine's weight for purity to avoid the three-to-five-year sentencing range established in Madden.

The Court further held that systemic bias, delay, and deportation risk did not justify a conditional sentence in this case.

The sentence was varied to 20 months' incarceration, giving credit for time served on the conditional sentence.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentences imposed on two black single mothers who pleaded guilty to importing cocaine.

The trial judge had introduced his own research on systemic racial and gender bias, concluding these factors mitigated their culpability and justified conditional sentences.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge overstepped his role by acting as advocate, witness, and judge, and erred in principle by imposing conditional sentences for a serious offence like importing cocaine.

Although the appropriate sentences would have been custodial terms of 20 months and two years less a day, the Court dismissed the appeal because the respondents had already served 17 months of their conditional sentences, and incarcerating them now would cause undue hardship.

The appellant appealed his sentence, including a period of parole ineligibility, for conspiring to import 100 kilograms of drugs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit and free of errors in principle.

The court noted the appellant was a career criminal and the mastermind of the offences, justifying the lengthy consecutive sentence and disparity with co-accused.

The period of parole ineligibility was deemed appropriate given the appellant's history of violating probation, parole, and interim release.

The appellant appealed her conviction on the basis that highly prejudicial evidence from a confidential informant was placed before the jury without a limiting instruction.

The Court of Appeal found that while the evidence was admissible to show the officers' state of mind, it was not admissible for its truth.

Because the Crown cross-examined the appellant on this evidence and referred to it in closing, and the trial judge referred to it in the charge, the curative proviso could not be applied.

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

The appellant was convicted of counselling to commit the indictable offence of trafficking and sentenced to two years consecutive, based on a joint submission.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in principle in accepting the two-year range, noting the drug was a small quantity of marijuana for personal use.

Leave to appeal was granted and the sentence was reduced to six months consecutive.

The appellant appealed his sentence.

The trial judge had expected the appellant to receive appropriate medical attention, including surgery for a serious eyesight condition, while in custody.

Fresh evidence showed the appellant did not receive this treatment, resulting in deteriorating health and extremely harsh conditions of confinement.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and reduced the sentence to time served, with no probation term added due to the appellant's age and health.