Phillip Dinis

The appellant was convicted of 10 sexual abuse offences against his former partner's daughter.

On appeal, he challenged the trial judge's admission of evidence related to pornography and his surveillance of the victim's grandmother's house, as well as the Crown's cross-examination of its own witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the impugned evidence was relevant and properly used for material issues or credibility, and that the procedure for refreshing witness memories was appropriate given the lack of objection at trial and absence of prejudice.

The applicant sought bail pending appeal from convictions for break and enter with intent and assault.

The trial judge found the applicant broke into his former wife's home and assaulted her while bound by a recognizance.

The applicant was sentenced to two years less a day imprisonment.

Applying the test under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, the court found the appeal not frivolous but with slim prospects of success.

The court was satisfied the applicant would surrender but determined that his detention was necessary in the public interest due to a pattern of domestic violence, breach of prior orders, and inadequate proposed sureties.

The motion for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

The accused, Jacob Olmstead, brought a pre-trial application challenging a search warrant for his residence, alleging a violation of his s. 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure, and seeking the exclusion of evidence.

The challenge was based on claims that the warrant was overbroad, the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient basis, and the affiant made material misrepresentations and omissions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the ITO, despite being imperfectly written, provided a sufficient and reasonable basis for the warrant's issuance, and that the alleged flaws did not undermine the reasonable grounds.

The applicant, charged with accessory after the fact to murder and arson, applied for judicial interim release under s. 522 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the applicant drove the perpetrators to meet the victim, witnessed the kidnapping, and later assisted in burning the victim's vehicle and hiding the perpetrators.

The court found the proposed release plan involving the applicant's brother and sister-in-law as sureties was weak.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to discharge his onus on the primary (flight risk), secondary (substantial likelihood of re-offending), and tertiary (confidence in the administration of justice) grounds under s. 515(10).