Robert B. Carew

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of theft.

On the first count, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge's conclusion on recent possession was reasonable and supported by circumstantial evidence.

On the second count, the Court allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal, concluding that the evidence did not support a finding that the appellant possessed the stolen items found in an apartment rented by someone else.

Consequently, the appellant's sentence was reduced from three years to two years, plus pre-trial custody credit.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm after a motor vehicle accident.

At the hospital, a police officer demanded a blood sample but failed to provide the medical assurances required under s. 254(4) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge excluded the blood evidence, finding the accused did not consent, and acquitted him.

The Court of Appeal reversed the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the demand was deficient and violated the Charter, consent is not an essential element under s. 254(3), and the admissibility of the evidence under s. 24(2) must be determined at a new trial.