Robert Armstrong

The Crown appealed a net sentence of 10 months' imprisonment and 18 months' probation imposed on the respondent for possession of child pornography, making child pornography available, and breach of probation.

The Crown argued the sentencing judge minimized the gravity of the offences and imposed a demonstrably unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors, and noting the custodial portion of the sentence had already been served.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence of two years less a day and a five-year driving prohibition imposed on the respondent for two counts of dangerous driving causing death.

The respondent had driven a sports car at more than twice the legal limit, resulting in a crash that killed two passengers.

The Court of Appeal found the conditional sentence unfit, as it failed to satisfy the principles of proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence given the respondent's intentionally reckless behaviour and prior record.

The conditional sentence was set aside and replaced with a sentence of imprisonment for the remaining time (101 days), and the driving prohibition was increased to seven years.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing the trial judge erred by relying on his own experience driving the curve, failing to comment on a critical curve speed calculation, and improperly assessing a passenger's evidence regarding speed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The court held that the trial judge's personal experience was irrelevant given the appellant was driving at more than twice the posted limit.

The conviction was reasonably based on excessive speed, oversteering, darkness, and failure to heed warning signs.

The appellant commenced a proposed class action asserting a statutory cause of action under s. 130 of the Securities Act for misrepresentations in a prospectus.

The motion judge found the claim was barred by the limitation period in s. 138 of the Securities Act and was not saved by the suspension of limitation periods in s. 28 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that a prior class action appeal did not encompass the s. 130 claim, meaning the suspension of the limitation period ended when the time to appeal the dismissal of that specific claim expired.

The appellants appealed a judgment dismissing their claim against the respondent insurer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the limitation period expired in 2005.

The court rejected the appellants' argument that equitable doctrines, such as unjust enrichment, could override the express terms of the insurance contract, the Limitations Act, 2002, and the Insurance Act, particularly since the claim did not fall within the policy terms as it was not an accident.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.