Robert Sheppard

Candice McFadden appealed her conviction for assaulting her common law spouse with a weapon.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the appellant's account of the incident, failed to conduct a full R. v. W.(D.) analysis by focusing too narrowly on the final moments of the confrontation, and applied a different standard of review to the evidence of the victim and the accused.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 9 years less 18 months pre-sentence custody for aggravated assault with a weapon.

He argued that the sentencing judge erred in failing to consider whether intent to kill was the only available inference and that the sentencing judge failed to apply the principle of proportionality given the mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge carefully balanced the mitigating and aggravating factors and was entitled to consider the appellant's intent to kill as a seriously aggravating factor.

The sentence was found to be fit in the circumstances.

The appellant, Ahmed Saghier, appealed his convictions and sentence on four counts of assault.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's credibility, the timing of reporting, the admission of hospital records, and the sufficiency of reasons.

The appellant also argued that the trial judge failed to properly consider a conditional sentence.

The Superior Court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessment or her decision to admit hospital records.

The court affirmed that the trial judge's reasons were sufficient and that her sentencing discretion was properly exercised, as the imposed sentence was within the acceptable range for domestic violence cases involving multiple injuries.

The accused applied for certiorari to quash his committal for trial on charges of discharging a firearm and aggravated assault.

The accused argued the preliminary inquiry judge failed to consider the whole of the evidence because the complainant recanted his identification of the accused during cross-examination.

The reviewing court dismissed the application, finding the preliminary inquiry judge properly considered all the evidence, including the complainant's adoption of his prior statement during examination in chief, and did not exceed his jurisdiction.

The defendant, M.P., was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown alleged non-consensual sexual intercourse, while the defendant claimed consent.

The court considered the conflicting testimonies of the complainant, Ms. H., and the defendant, M.P., as well as a third witness, Ms. D.S. The judge noted numerous significant inconsistencies in the Crown witnesses' accounts across multiple interviews and hearings, and found the defendant's testimony problematic due to admitted lies and internal inconsistencies.

Ultimately, the court found that the totality of the conflicting evidence left a reasonable doubt as to whether the complainant consented to sexual intercourse, leading to the dismissal of the charge.

The accused was sentenced on two charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking in methamphetamine and one charge of fraud.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record spanning 26 years and had participated in the London Drug Treatment Court, where he made significant progress before relapsing and committing the offences while on bail.

The court imposed a sentence of 4 years in federal penitentiary on the drug trafficking charges and 2 months consecutive on the fraud charge, with credit for pre-trial custody and bail conditions.

The court emphasized the serious harm caused by crystal methamphetamine and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed following conviction for assault causing bodily harm, arguing that the sentencing judge erred by refusing to grant a conditional discharge and instead imposing a 30‑day conditional sentence.

The appellant contended that the sentencing judge used conclusory reasoning and failed to properly weigh mitigating factors including exemplary character, loss of employment, and significant collateral consequences.

The court held that the sentencing judge properly considered all mitigating and aggravating factors and appropriately emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the abuse of authority and breach of trust by a custodial officer against a prisoner.

Applying the deferential standard for appellate review of sentence, the court found no error in principle and no basis to conclude the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, uttering threats, and assault.

He argued that as a front-seat passenger he did not operate the vehicle and that the trial judge misapprehended evidence affecting credibility findings.

The court held that the trial judge made no reversible error in assessing credibility and was entitled to accept the taxi driver’s evidence that the appellant grabbed and turned the steering wheel, causing the vehicle to veer into oncoming traffic.

The court found the conduct analogous to circumstances where a passenger assumes control of a vehicle and thereby operates it.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, although the sentence appeal was allowed on joint submission to vary probation to reflect community service already completed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving, fleeing police, and assaulting a police officer, arguing that the trial judge's finding on identity was unreasonable.

The sole issue at trial was whether the appellant was the driver of the ATV involved in the incident.

The trial judge relied on the eyewitness identification by a police officer who had prior familiarity with the appellant and observed him face-to-face during the altercation.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the evidence and the trial judge's application of the principles regarding eyewitness identification.

The court found that the trial judge properly assessed the reliability of the identification evidence and that the verdict was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.