Paul Joseph Calarco

The appellant appealed his convictions for breaching three Canadian court orders (firearms prohibition, probation, and recognizance) after purchasing an assault rifle in Michigan.

He argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the possession occurred outside Canada, and that a procedural error during arraignment vitiated the conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the failure to read the full charge at arraignment caused no prejudice and that Canadian courts have jurisdiction to enforce their own orders even when the breaching conduct occurs abroad.

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder based on a DNA match from a saliva sample he provided to police while on post-release supervision.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred by applying the balance of probabilities standard to determine whether he voluntarily consented to providing the sample, asserting that the common law confessions rule standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt should apply.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the common law confessions rule is confined to statements due to reliability concerns, and the balance of probabilities standard remains appropriate for assessing consent to bodily samples.

The appellant appealed a committal order for extradition to the United States, arguing that the demanding state did not produce reliable evidence because the means of knowledge of a special agent were not disclosed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the record provided detailed information about the special agent's means of knowledge through electronic and physical surveillance, which demonstrated the reliability of the evidence and confirmed the appellant's identity.

The appellant appealed his effective eight-year sentence for firearms offences, arguing it failed to reflect his guilty plea and rehabilitative potential, and represented too large an increase from his previous sentences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the extreme seriousness of attending a meeting to purchase firearms while armed with a loaded handgun containing hollow-point bullets.

The court noted the appellant was subject to three firearms prohibitions at the time and had a significant related criminal record, concluding the sentence was fit and no error in principle occurred.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Crown conceded that the appeal must be allowed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding self-defence, specifically by only charging under s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code and overemphasizing its objective component.

The appellant also challenged the instructions on defence of property and the application of the Scopelliti principles regarding the complainant's criminal record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly focused the jury on the most relevant self-defence provision, correctly balanced the subjective and objective components, and caused no prejudice with the limiting instruction on the complainant's record.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in leaving the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent with the jury, as there was no evidence the appellant took reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The majority also held that similar fact evidence was admissible to show a pattern of bizarre sexual behaviour and specific propensity.

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

The appellant pleaded guilty to twelve offences, including assault causing bodily harm and break and enter, mostly in a domestic context.

He was sentenced to ten months in custody in addition to seven and a half months of pre-trial custody credit.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to adequately consider his guilty plea, his rehabilitation, and erred in calculating pre-trial custody credit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the relevant factors and the overall sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for multiple offences, including procuring prostitution, assault, and extortion.

He argued the trial judge's jury charge was deficient for failing to include a Vetrovec warning, distinguish between credibility and reliability, and instruct on all constituent elements of the offences.

The Court of Appeal found the charge deficient but concluded it did not amount to reversible error for most counts, as the case rested simply on the complainant's credibility.

However, the court substituted a conviction for common assault in place of assault with a weapon because the trial judge failed to specify the weapon in the charge.

The total sentence of eight years was upheld, though the individual sentences were varied to correct an unlawful six-year concurrent sentence for common assault.

The appellant appealed a term of his conditional sentence that prohibited him from working outside his home for the first ten months.

Although the Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's original conditions, it admitted fresh evidence regarding a tragic event involving the appellant's daughter and his worsening medical condition.

The Court allowed the appeal and varied the condition to permit the appellant to seek and maintain employment, other than self-employment, at a place approved by his supervisor.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in ruling the proposed opinion evidence of a psychologist inadmissible and in admitting a child's out-of-court statement.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge correctly concluded the expert evidence was unnecessary as it did not fall outside the experience of a trial judge.

The Court also found no error in admitting the out-of-court statement, as the hearsay dangers were overcome by the opportunity for cross-examination, videotape evidence of demeanour, and the child's understanding of truth and falsehood.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 15 months' imprisonment, in addition to 6 months of pre-trial custody, for three counts of domestic assault and one count of assaulting a police officer.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly accounted for the guilty plea and pre-trial custody.

Given the appellant's serious criminal record, the sentence was deemed fit and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, who were youthful offenders, participated in an unprovoked machete attack on a randomly selected victim, causing serious injuries.

They were convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to seven and a half years' imprisonment.

On appeal, they argued the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to their youth and erred in not granting enhanced pre-trial custody credit for poor institutional conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the severity of the violent crime, and that there was no specific evidence of hardship to justify enhanced pre-trial custody credit.

The appellants were convicted of forcible confinement and possession of a prohibited weapon following a jury trial, having been acquitted of robbery, assault, and pointing a firearm.

They appealed their convictions, arguing the trial judge failed to properly relate the defence theory to the jury and erred in the W.(D.) instruction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the jury was properly instructed.

However, the sentence appeal of one appellant was allowed, as the trial judge erred in principle by sentencing him based on an assault for which he had been acquitted.

His sentence was varied to time served.

The appellant appealed his convictions for weapons offences and possession of cocaine, as well as his three-year sentence.

He argued that the trial judge erred in finding his arrest and the subsequent search, which yielded a loaded handgun and crack cocaine, to be lawful.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the test for lawful arrest by assessing the totality of the circumstances to determine if the police officers' subjective belief was objectively reasonable.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court emphasizing the need for deterrence and community safety regarding firearms offences.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to report a change of address.

The Court of Appeal held that spending weekends at a girlfriend's house while keeping personal effects at his mother's house did not constitute a change of address.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The appellant appealed his sentence after inflicting a severe beating on the victim.

The Court of Appeal found that the offence required a lengthy penitentiary sentence, especially given the appellant's serious criminal record and prior convictions for similar offences of violence.

The court concluded that the trial judge made no error in principle, the sentence was not unfit, and the appellant remained a serious danger to the public.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for drug-related offences.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking, finding a sufficient factual basis including the quantity of marijuana, cash, scales, and bags.

The court also declined to interfere with Count 7 due to trial counsel's concession.

However, the convictions of one appellant on Counts 4 and 5 were quashed because the absence of reasons by the trial judge prevented meaningful appellate review, as guilt was not the only possible verdict on the evidence.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for kidnapping, robbery, extortion, and unlawful confinement, as well as his six-year sentence.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal showing that one of the complainants had a criminal record and used aliases, contrary to the complainant's testimony at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the fresh evidence failed the Palmer test because it could have been discovered with due diligence and would not have reasonably affected the verdict given the strong corroborating identification and cell phone evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the overall sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for offences involving his daughter.

He raised arguments regarding the trial judge's instructions on similar fact evidence, the refusal to sever counts, and the fitness of the sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's handling of the similar fact evidence, concluding that the jury was properly instructed on propensity and the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect.

The sentence was found to be within the appropriate range.

The appeal was dismissed.