R.D. Cornell

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for two counts of theft under $5,000 and his 90-day intermittent sentence.

The charges arose from missing funds at ATMs the appellant maintained.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his failure to deny the theft and his reimbursement of the missing funds.

The Superior Court of Justice found no overriding and palpable error in the trial judge's credibility findings or application of the W.(D.) framework.

The court also upheld the sentence, finding it was not demonstrably unfit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal harassment and two counts of breach of undertaking.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors.

Specifically, the trial judge failed to properly apply the objective test for criminal harassment, as there was no evidence of prior misconduct to support the reasonableness of the complainant's fear.

Additionally, the trial judge erred in finding the appellant breached his undertaking by attending the hallway landing outside the complainant's apartment, as the undertaking strictly prohibited attendance at the apartment itself.

A new trial was ordered for these charges.

The court also granted leave to appeal the sentence for a separate breach of undertaking conviction, imposing a suspended sentence and 12 months' probation.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction trial judge's decision to exclude a toxicology report due to late disclosure under s. 7 and s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The accused argued the late disclosure prevented him from making an informed decision about applying for the provincial ignition interlock program.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that there is no constitutionally protected right to drive or to participate in the discretionary interlock program.

The Charter violation was set aside, and the matter was remitted for trial.

Following guilty pleas to sexual assault, sexual interference, and breach of a prohibition order, the Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code.

The offender had a history of sexual offences against children, including prior convictions and repeated conduct demonstrating a pattern of sexual violence against minors.

Expert psychiatric evidence diagnosed pedophilia and antisocial personality traits, with actuarial assessments indicating a moderate‑high to high risk of sexual recidivism.

The court concluded there was no reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence followed by long‑term supervision would adequately protect the public.

An indeterminate sentence was imposed after the offender was declared a dangerous offender.

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded prohibited firearm after police found a handgun in his bag during a drug search of a residence.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of two witnesses with criminal records, who testified that the bag and gun belonged to the accused.

The accused denied knowledge of the gun.

Applying the W.(D.) principles and considering the Vetrovec warnings, the court rejected the accused's testimony, accepted the Crown witnesses as credible, and found the accused guilty.