Robert Sheppard

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and arson following the strangulation of his common-law partner and subsequent burning of their home.

He appealed his 10-year sentence for manslaughter, arguing it was too high given the mitigating factors, including a successful provocation defence.

He also appealed the calculation of his pre-sentence custody credit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the 10-year sentence, finding it was not clearly unreasonable given the aggravating factors of domestic violence and extreme violence.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to correct an error in the pre-sentence custody credit, reducing the net sentence to 6 years and 3 months.

The Crown appealed the sentencing judge's refusal to order the respondent to register under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) following a guilty plea for sexual interference.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge erred by relying on impermissible speculation about the impact of registration on the respondent.

The respondent failed to meet the high statutory threshold of demonstrating that the impact of registration would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

A 20-year SOIRA registration order was imposed.

The appellant appealed his 5-year sentence for assault and attempted kidnapping after grabbing a stranger off the street and trying to force her into his car.

The trial judge rejected the Crown's proposal for a reformatory sentence, finding it insufficient for deterrence and denunciation given the premeditated and random nature of the offence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's approach or her treatment of the guilty plea, and held the sentence was fit, including when considered in totality with a subsequent 10-year sentence for other offences.

The respondent pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and Internet child luring.

He was sentenced to 45 days' imprisonment for the child pornography conviction and a 12-month conditional sentence for the luring conviction.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence, arguing the sentencing judge overemphasized rehabilitation and underemphasized denunciation and deterrence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly applied the relevant principles and her decision was entitled to deference.

The appellant municipality appealed an acquittal of the respondent for violating the Adult Entertainment Parlour Bylaw by having physical contact with another person while providing services as an attendant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the summary conviction appeal judge erred in implying the bylaw was ultra vires and in interpreting the bylaw to require proof that the accused was an employee of the establishment.

The Court held that the definition of 'attendant' does not require proof of an economic relationship with the establishment.

A new trial was ordered, though the appellant indicated it would not proceed.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on charges of sexual assault and assault with a weapon.

The respondent had argued that the complainants consented to the activities, except for one assault with a hammer which he claimed was accidental.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by failing to address whether the apparent consent was vitiated by the respondent's exercise of authority or the complainants' fear of violence, as required by s. 265(3) of the Criminal Code.

A new trial was ordered for the charges where consent was in issue.

The acquittal for the hammer assault was upheld as the trial judge's assessment of the injury was open to him.

The appellant failed to surrender himself as required by his release order.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The Crown appealed an 18-month conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for production of marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and theft over $5000 related to a commercial grow-op.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by conflating the forfeiture of offence-related property with general sentencing principles.

However, the majority held that a conditional sentence was still appropriate given the mitigating factors, including a guilty plea, employment, and family obligations.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court noting that the respondent had already served over eight months of the sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for the first-degree murder of a 17-month-old child.

He argued that the trial judge failed to adequately explain the difference between intent and motive regarding the sexual component of the assault, and failed to properly instruct the jury on a possible break between the sexual assault and the fatal assaults.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge was impeccable and the assaults formed an uninterrupted continuum.

The appellant appealed his sentence for an armed robbery committed in the victim's home during a drug deal, during which the appellant fired a gun.

At the time of the offence, the appellant was on bail for similar charges and had a significant youth record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons were complete, the treatment of pre-trial custody was within the trial judge's discretion, and the sentence was fit given the significant aggravating factors.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing there was insufficient evidence that he attempted to penetrate the sleeping complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion based on the appellant's actions and the complainant's testimony of experiencing sharp pain.

The court noted the complainant was not cross-examined on this part of her evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge properly answered a jury question regarding available verdicts and adequately described the elements of aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The sentence appeal regarding the length of the probation term was also dismissed, as the court found no error in principle.

The accused were separately convicted of driving 'over 80'.

In both cases, the trial judge found the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the breathalyzer demand, but allowed the Crown to rely on the presumption of identity in s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code because the accused did not bring a Charter application.

The summary conviction appeal court quashed the convictions, holding that a 'demand' under s. 258(1)(c) must be a valid demand made on reasonable and probable grounds.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeals and restored the convictions, holding that under R. v. Rilling, the Crown need not prove reasonable and probable grounds to rely on the presumption of identity unless the accused brings a Charter application.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge's finding that he had anal intercourse with the victim was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant had admitted to the act while the victim was extremely intoxicated, provided no innocent explanation, and there was corroborating evidence of the victim's subsequent soreness.

The appellant appealed his conviction, challenging the validity of a search warrant issued under section 487(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that there was ample evidence upon which the issuing justice of the peace could reasonably have formed an independent judicial opinion that the statutory requirements had been met.

The appellant appealed his conviction for criminal harassment, arguing he lacked the requisite mens rea because he attempted to disguise himself and hide his presence from the complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was entitled to infer recklessness from the proven facts, including that the appellant drove slowly past the complainant's gym twice in a distinctive car and ran onto the street as her vehicle was leaving.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, noting that totality was taken into account when the appellant was sentenced for further offences subsequent to this sentence.

Furthermore, three years had elapsed, the appellant was facing new charges, and the appeal would have no practical impact.

The appellant sought leave to appeal three concurrent sentences of six months' imprisonment for assault with a weapon, uttering a death threat, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace against his younger sister.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to impose a conditional sentence and placing undue emphasis on punitive aims.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the offences involved repeated acts of violence over an hour to exercise control over the victim.

Leave to appeal was granted but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the use of DNA evidence found on a scarf and the use of his criminal record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the criminal standard of proof applies to the evidence as a whole, not individual items, and that the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the prohibited use of the appellant's criminal record.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for robbery and unlawful confinement arising from a home invasion.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the reliability of the complainant's eyewitness identification evidence and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the reliability of the recognition evidence and supporting circumstantial evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court noting the six-month sentence was lenient given the nature of the home invasion.