Paul Joseph Calarco

The appellant appealed his convictions for wilfully attempting to obstruct justice and failing to comply with a recognizance, arising from conversations with a Crown witness while awaiting trial.

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

The trial judge erred by failing to assess the appellant's mens rea regarding his belief that, as a self-represented accused, he was permitted to speak to witnesses.

Furthermore, the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by finding the witness felt intimidated, which the Crown conceded was not supported by the record.

The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted murder and related firearm offences, as well as his sentence of 16.5 years imprisonment with a parole ineligibility order.

The appellant shot the complainant, leaving her paralyzed.

On appeal, he challenged the jury instructions on the challenge for cause process, intent, reasonable doubt, and the complainant's denials, as well as the admission of similar act evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible errors in the conviction but set aside the parole ineligibility order as the trial judge provided no reasons to support it.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime following a jury trial.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge provided inadequate instructions to the triers during the challenge for cause process and erred in dismissing his Corbett application to exclude a prior narcotics conviction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the triers on the nature of their task and the procedure to follow.

The Court also held the trial judge erred in dismissing the Corbett application, as the prior conviction was highly prejudicial and not a crime of dishonesty.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a custodial sentence imposed after a guilty plea to historical indecent assaults against a young male.

Applying the conditional sentence framework from Proulx, the court considered both the risk of reoffending and the gravity of potential harm, together with the extent to which strict community conditions could reduce any danger.

Fresh psychiatric and psychological evidence, coupled with lengthy compliance on bail under house arrest and sustained treatment participation, demonstrated that the appellant had become a low risk to reoffend and was suitable for management in the community.

The court held that rehabilitation remained a primary sentencing objective in this type of case where it was realistically achievable, allowed the appeal, and substituted a further two-month conditional sentence plus probation.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed for sexual assault following a jury trial.

The Court of Appeal held the sentence was manifestly unfit given the gravity of the offence, the offender's abuse of authority, the complainant's unconsciousness, and his failure to stop when she objected.

A custodial sentence was clearly required, and the court stated that a penitentiary term would have been appropriate.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and the sentence was varied to 18 months' incarceration.

The appellant was convicted of importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

During cross-examination, the Crown questioned the appellant about his association with two individuals who had been convicted of drug importing, despite no evidence linking them to the appellant's charges.

The trial judge failed to caution the jury against drawing an adverse inference of guilt by association.

The Court of Appeal held that the improper cross-examination and lack of a limiting instruction resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed, convictions quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a decision of a motions judge who denied an order of prohibition and upheld the trial judge's order for a psychiatric assessment under the Mental Health Act for sentencing purposes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the conclusion that the trial judge exercised her discretion judiciously to obtain information for sentencing, and finding no evidence of bias.

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to consider the defence of intoxication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the intoxication defence as the appellant's conduct was clearly purposeful.

The court also held that the trial judge properly found the appellant's actions amounted to threats of violence under s. 343(a) of the Criminal Code, as they caused a reasonable apprehension of physical harm.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of an unregistered handgun.

The court held that the trial judge erred in principle by combining a custodial sentence and a conditional sentence where the resulting total effectively amounted to a penitentiary sentence exceeding two years less one day.

However, the court also held that blended custodial and conditional sentences are legally permissible for multiple offences where the total sentence does not exceed two years less one day and the statutory preconditions in s. 742.1(b) are met.

In light of fresh evidence showing successful rehabilitation efforts while incarcerated, the court reduced the conditional sentence on the drug offence to sixteen months less one day and left the remaining terms intact.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence following a jury trial for a sexual offence involving an alleged position of trust.

The court rejected challenges to the jury charge, including references to a non-existent letter, the instruction on position of trust, comments on the failure to testify, and the distinction between credibility and reliability.

The conviction appeal was dismissed because no prejudice was shown and the charge, read as a whole, was adequate.

The sentence appeal was allowed because the trial judge placed undue emphasis on the criminal record and the custodial sentence was disproportionate to the relatively minor factual circumstances of the offence.