Raymond Earl Boggs

The applicant, convicted of historical sexual assault against his daughters and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, applied for bail pending appeal.

He argued his appeal had merit based on his hearing impairment preventing a fair trial and alleged collusion between the complainants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the grounds of appeal arguable but weak, and concluding that the public interest favoured the continued enforcement of the sentence.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittals for second degree murder and attempted murder.

The trial judge had ruled that the Crown could not call alibi evidence in reply to the defence's alternate suspect theory, forcing the Crown to call the evidence in-chief and prejudicing its case.

The trial judge also excluded the Crown's expert evidence regarding the type of instrument used to inflict the fatal wound, erroneously concluding it would not assist the jury.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in both rulings, which had a material bearing on the acquittals, and ordered a new trial.

In a murder prosecution, the Crown sought to admit multiple statements made by the accused during police interviews and at the scene of a medical emergency involving a child.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in breach of ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court conducted a voir dire examining voluntariness under the confessions rule and the accused’s right to silence.

Some statements were admitted where the accused attended voluntarily and spoke without coercion, while other statements were excluded where police interrogation ignored repeated assertions of the right to remain silent or involved oppressive questioning.

The ruling provides a contextual analysis of voluntariness and the interaction between the confessions rule and Charter protections.

The youth pleaded guilty to offences arising from two armed robberies where a co-offender used a sawed-off shotgun.

The sentencing judge declined the Crown's application to designate the offences as serious violent offences (SVO) under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, finding an insufficient nexus between the youth's actions as a party and the serious psychological harm suffered by the victims.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the standard criminal law test for causation applies to the SVO definition and that the youth's conduct was a significant contributing cause of the harm.

The SVO designation was made for the second set of offences, rendering the deferred custody sentence illegal, and the matter was remitted for sentencing.

The appellant appealed his conviction for extortion, having been acquitted of related assault charges arising from the same incident.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misdirected the jury by providing a generic instruction on extortion that included 'threats', which could have led the jury to convict based on words alone, despite the Crown's case requiring proof of physical assault.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.