Paul G. McDermott

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for robbery and unlawful confinement arising from a home invasion.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the reliability of the complainant's eyewitness identification evidence and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the reliability of the recognition evidence and supporting circumstantial evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court noting the six-month sentence was lenient given the nature of the home invasion.

The appellant was detained under the Mental Health Act after police concluded she was suicidal.

While she was at the hospital, police conducted a warrantless search of her home under s. 117.04(2) of the Criminal Code and seized her properly stored firearms.

The application judge granted a forfeiture order, which was upheld by the summary conviction appeal judge.

On further appeal, the appellant argued the warrantless search was invalid and violated her s. 8 Charter rights, thereby depriving the application judge of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the possibility of danger persisted despite her hospital detention, making it impracticable to obtain a warrant.

The search was lawful and reasonable, and the forfeiture order was supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the complainant and the appellant.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge reasonably concluded the complainant's evidence was confirmed by another witness in critical respects, and that variations in testimony were collateral or explained by intoxication.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's treatment of a serious inconsistency in the appellant's evidence.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, and the appeal from sentence was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed a condition of his probation order.

The Crown conceded that condition r(8) of the probation order was not a reasonable condition.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and deleted the condition.

The appellant appealed the conditions of his one-year conditional sentence and three-year probation order for assault causing bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal upheld the strict house arrest condition but found the restriction on family visits unreasonable, varying it to allow weekend visits with his daughter.

The court also varied the probation order to remove several conditions, including the requirement to abstain from alcohol.

The appeal was allowed in part.