Phil Downes

The Crown appealed the acquittals of the respondents on charges of production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The trial judge had excluded the evidence obtained from a search warrant, finding the Information to Obtain (ITO) was carelessly drafted, materially misleading, and factually incomplete, resulting in a s. 8 Charter breach.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to apply the proper test of whether a sufficient basis remained to issue the warrant after excising any offending portions.

The Court also held that even if there was a breach, the evidence should not have been excluded under s. 24(2) given the respondents' reduced expectation of privacy in the premises.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and gun storage offences.

The Court of Appeal found that evidence of the appellant's refusal to answer police questions about a gun cabinet key was improperly admitted and repeated in the jury charge.

Additionally, the Crown failed to disclose a property report relevant to the gun storage charges.

Given the potential adverse inference on the appellant's credibility, the court quashed all convictions and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a loaded restricted firearm, arguing his Charter rights were violated during an investigative detention and search at a subway station.

The police approached the appellant for loitering, initiated an investigative detention, and subsequently arrested and searched him after he resisted a pat-down search.

The Court of Appeal found no violation of sections 8 or 9 of the Charter, holding that the police had reasonable grounds for both the investigative detention and the subsequent arrest and search.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the sentence imposed for civil contempt.

They argued the motion judge erred by imposing a significantly longer sentence than suggested by counsel without advising them beforehand.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge did not owe deference to the trustee's submissions on sentence and that the sentence was fit to vindicate the due administration of justice in the context of the contempts.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after intentionally setting fire to his home, knowing his paraplegic estranged wife was inside.

He appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to consider the police's failure to video record a three-hour interaction prior to his videotaped confession when assessing its reliability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed the voluntariness and reliability of the confession, and correctly applied the W.D. principle.

The appellant appealed his conviction and 30-month sentence for a sexual offence.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the complainant, who had been intoxicated, and a defence witness.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, noting the complainant's evidence on consent was supported by other witnesses and there was a basis to discount the defence witness's evidence due to bias.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, and the 30-month sentence was upheld as fit.

The accused was charged with defrauding his employer.

The trial judge stayed the proceedings, finding that the Crown breached the accused's section 7 Charter rights by failing to provide a full and independent forensic audit covering his entire employment period, and noting potential section 11(b) delay issues.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the right to make full answer and defence does not impose a duty on the Crown to investigate possible defences, and that the delay was largely institutional and not unreasonable.

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

The Court of Appeal held that it was open to the trial judge to conclude the witness failed to explain an important inconsistency in the evidence, and it was for the trial judge to determine the impact on credibility.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended his evidence when rejecting his testimony.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's conclusions regarding the appellant's credibility—specifically his characterization of his criminal record and his reasons for calling his mother—were supported by the transcript.

The trial judge's factual findings concerning knowledge and control of scales, cocaine residue, and guns were open to him on the record.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence of 15 years and 3 months' imprisonment followed by a 10-year supervision order for severe, long-term domestic abuse.

The amicus curiae conceded there were no arguable grounds for the conviction appeal.

On the sentence appeal, the amicus argued the trial judge failed to adequately consider the appellant's age and progressive dementia.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting expert evidence that the appellant posed a moderate to high risk to re-offend and that his dementia might stabilize with treatment.

The court agreed with the trial judge's characterization of the offences as the worst case of domestic abuse short of murder, concluding the sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed his sentence of four years' imprisonment for simple possession.

The Crown conceded that the sentencing judge erred in principle by treating the appellant's immigration status and place of birth as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the original sentence excessive and disproportionate for a first offender with no evidence linking him to broader immigration schemes.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced to two years' imprisonment.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision that quashed his discharge at a preliminary inquiry.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reviewing judge that the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded their jurisdiction by weighing the defence of 'reasonable excuse', which falls outside the essential elements of the offence.

The appeal was dismissed, the discharge was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the preliminary inquiry judge.

The appellant appealed her sentence for fraud over $1,000.

The trial judge had rejected a conditional sentence and imposed a custodial sentence, noting the appellant reoffended while on probation, the length of time over which the offence occurred, the amount involved, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.