Paula A. Rochman

The accused was arrested at Pearson International Airport after returning from Panama when customs officers discovered approximately two pounds of cocaine hidden in four health care product bottles in her checked luggage.

The accused claimed she was an innocent courier who had been tricked by her travelling companion into carrying the bottles.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent, finding that her demeanour and actions at the airport, including attempting to abandon her suitcase and hiding baggage tags in her bra, demonstrated guilty knowledge.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly imported the cocaine and found her guilty.

The Crown appealed a sentencing decision that designated the respondent as a long-term offender rather than a dangerous offender.

The respondent had a serious criminal record for sexually-motivated offences and was diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD).

The sentencing judge accepted defence expert evidence that the respondent's FASD symptoms could be treated, allowing him to participate in sex offender programs and reducing his risk of re-offending to an acceptable level in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's preference for the defence expert's evidence or her exercise of discretion.

The appellant was convicted of internet luring after engaging in sexually explicit conversations with an undercover police officer posing as a 13-year-old girl.

The appellant testified he believed he was communicating with an adult in a role-playing game.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, stating his credibility must be assessed bearing in mind his explanation came long after disclosure was available.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred in law by using the appellant's constitutional right to disclosure against his credibility, shifting the burden of proof, and presuming witnesses tell the truth.

The appellant appealed a sentence for breach of probation.

The trial judge had effectively imposed a 34-month sentence, considering pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence manifestly excessive, noting the appellant had no prior record for breach of probation, had never been imprisoned, and had successfully served a conditional sentence.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to time served, with the probation order remaining in place.

The accused, an 18-year-old, was caught shoplifting and used an inoperable sawed-off shotgun to threaten security guards and escape custody.

He was convicted of multiple offences, including three counts of using an imitation firearm while committing an indictable offence.

The trial judge declared the mandatory consecutive sentencing provision in s. 85(4) of the Criminal Code unconstitutional under s. 12 of the Charter and imposed a suspended sentence with probation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal applied the Kienapple principle to stay two of the three imitation firearm convictions, finding they arose from a single transaction.

The Court also set aside the declaration of unconstitutionality, holding that the trial judge erred in his s. 12 Charter analysis and that s. 85(4) does not impose grossly disproportionate punishment.

The sentence itself was not varied.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder and numerous other offences arising from a robbery and shooting at a sporting goods store.

At trial, the Crown relied on similar fact evidence from five other armed robberies to prove the identity of the appellant as the shooter.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of two of the other robberies, as they lacked striking similarity to the charged offences and failed to establish a nexus to the appellant.

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