Paul Joseph Calarco

The appellant appealed a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower court's disposition.

The Court held that the trial judge's inferences from a conversation with the victim's mother were reasonably open and that the proposed fresh evidence regarding a Human Rights Commission claim was properly rejected.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed for lack of merit.

The appellant was convicted of importing cocaine after Customs officials found 849 grams of cocaine hidden in his luggage.

At trial, the Crown relied on false statements the appellant made to Customs officials during routine questioning to prove he knew the drugs were in his luggage.

The appellant argued that admitting these statutorily compelled statements violated his s. 7 Charter right against self-incrimination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that routine questioning at the border does not engage the principle against self-incrimination, as travellers have no reasonable expectation of privacy or right to remain silent in that context.

The 40-month sentence was also upheld.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of common assault against his wife and sentenced to consecutive six-month terms of imprisonment, plus three years' probation, after receiving thirteen months' credit for pre-sentence custody.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the effective penitentiary sentence disproportionate to the offences, which consisted of a kick and a slap, despite the appellant's lengthy criminal record and the context of domestic assault.

The Court also found a probationary term restricting the appellant's presence in his wife's home to be unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the sentence reduced to time served, and the specific probationary term struck out.

The appellants were convicted of various weapons offences and crimes of violence related to the collection of drug debts.

They appealed their convictions on several grounds, primarily arguing that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding reasonable doubt, the segregation of evidence, the adequacy of the Vetrovec warning for unsavoury witnesses, and the position of the defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no reversible errors in the jury charge.

However, the sentence appeals for three of the appellants were allowed, as the trial judge failed to adequately consider the principle of rehabilitation and mitigating factors, resulting in reduced sentences.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for historical child sexual abuse.

At trial, the defence called a psychiatrist to testify that the complainants' allegations were the result of false memory syndrome.

The trial judge accepted the expert's qualifications in psychiatry but ultimately found the complainants had a reliable core memory of the abuse.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in her treatment of the expert evidence and misapprehended evidence regarding his expressions of remorse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the expert evidence or the appellant's credibility.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court upholding the sentence of two years less a day.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of stolen property, firearms offences, and animal neglect.

He appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in principle by considering unproven prior offences.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge improperly based the sentence in part on unadmitted prior offences without applying s. 725 of the Criminal Code.

The Court reduced the possession sentences to 15 months concurrent, struck out the probation term as overly punitive, and modified the animal prohibition order under s. 446(5).

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and his sentence of two and a half years.

He argued his rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter were violated during his arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that the officers had a legitimate reason to investigate the appellant.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was within the appropriate range and no error in principle was made.

The appellant appealed his conviction and 4-year sentence on the basis of an inadequate jury charge.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's 9-page charge was a 'skeleton charge' that ignored model jury instructions, failed to relate evidence to the elements of the offence, and failed to put the subjective element of self-defence to the jury.

The Court concluded this non-direction amounted to misdirection, allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

The Crown appealed a sentence consisting of a $500 fine.

The Court of Appeal noted that given the gravity of the offences and the offender's substantial record, the fine was inadequate to address denunciation, general deterrence, and protection of the public.

However, because the offender had turned his life around and assumed substantial family responsibilities, the court concluded that incarcerating him would not be in the interest of justice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to parental abduction of a child under fourteen after taking his son to Libya and depriving the mother of contact for eleven years.

He appealed his sentence of 19 months' imprisonment and three years' probation.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred by treating the guilty plea as a neutral factor, but concluded the sentence was fit and proper in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for aggravated assault.

The trial judge had determined that a 42-month sentence was appropriate but credited the respondent with 18 months for pre-sentence custody, reducing the sentence to under two years and imposing a conditional sentence.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's subsequent decision in R. v. Fice, the Court of Appeal held that pre-sentence custody cannot be used to reduce a penitentiary sentence to make a conditional sentence available.

The appeal was allowed, and the conditional sentence was varied to a custodial sentence of nine months, accounting for time served.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for an offence involving the theft of jewellery and the alleged use of an imitation gun.

He argued the trial judge failed to distinguish between credibility and reliability, ignored his statement to police, and that the Crown's cross-examination was improper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and that, while there were improprieties in the cross-examination, they did not destroy the appearance of a fair trial in a judge-alone proceeding.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The Crown appealed a sentencing decision declining to designate the respondent a dangerous offender and instead declaring him a long-term offender following a predicate sexual assault causing bodily harm and an extensive history of violent sexual offending.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred in law by failing to make the required finding of substantial risk under s. 753.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code and by selectively relying on evidence of treatability while ignoring significant contrary evidence.

The court emphasized that public protection is the governing objective and that a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community must rest on evidence amounting to more than hope or speculation.

The appeal was allowed, the long-term offender designation was set aside, and a new sentencing hearing was ordered.

The accused chiropractor was charged with sexually assaulting a patient.

The trial judge stayed the proceedings due to a 16-month delay, finding a breach of the accused's s. 11(b) Charter rights.

The summary conviction appeal court overturned the stay, finding the trial judge erred in assessing prejudice and institutional delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the accused's appeal, holding that the 12-month institutional delay was not unreasonable given the seriousness of the charge and the accused's failure to take steps to expedite the trial.

The appellant appealed from a Summary Conviction Appeal Judge's decision upholding his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the SCAJ's decision regarding conviction, as the trial judge properly assessed the complainant's evidence and gave adequate reasons.

On sentence, the Crown conceded the SCAJ erred in imposing a $2,000 fine alongside custody and probation, and in imposing a DNA order when the Crown had not appealed the trial judge's refusal to make one.

The fine and DNA order were struck, but the 100-hour community service order was upheld.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, and the appeal as to sentence was allowed in part.

The appellant appealed an eleven-month sentence for breaching a non-contact clause in a recognizance of bail on a pending sexual assault charge.

The breach involved an unintentional, two-minute meeting with the victim with no threats or violence.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was outside the appropriate range, granted leave to appeal, and reduced the sentence to four months, with two months' credit for pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed his conviction for a sexual offence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge misapprehended the complainant's evidence regarding whether she yelled during the incident.

The trial judge also failed to adequately address the complainant's prior inconsistent statement made under oath to the police, in which she denied any sexual activity.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge made errors in principle and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's treatment of the identification evidence, including a witness's description, a photo line-up, and a dolphin pendant linking the appellant to the crimes.

The court concluded that while the case was not overwhelming, the cumulative evidence was sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to convict.

The appeal was dismissed.

The United States sought the extradition of the appellant for first-degree murder.

The extradition judge committed the appellant for surrender based on a full confession he gave to American investigators while in custody in a Canadian jail.

The appellant appealed, arguing his statement was obtained in violation of his s. 10(b) Charter rights because he was given American Miranda warnings rather than full Canadian Charter warnings.

Assuming a Charter breach occurred, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the statement was admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter because the breach was not serious, the appellant had an almost irresistible desire to confess, and admitting the highly reliable evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for repeated acts of sexual abuse against his step-daughter.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, erred in refusing production of therapist notes, and erred in treating after-the-fact conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and that the verdict was reasonable.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court upholding the 18-month custodial sentence as fit.