Robin McKechney

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in his application of the Grant framework after finding a section 8 Charter breach due to the failure to disclose a confidential informant's criminal record in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The appellant also argued the trial judge misapprehended inconsistencies in the surveillance evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence.

The trial judge reasonably accepted that the officer omitted the record to protect the informant's anonymity, and the surveillance evidence consistently described activities indicative of drug transactions.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and threatening death, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, applied unequal scrutiny to defence and Crown evidence, and misused his criminal record.

The Superior Court of Justice agreed, finding the trial judge erred in law by using the appellant's record of prior assaults to assess credibility without limiting instructions, effectively using it as propensity evidence.

The court also found the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding a social media post and unfairly scrutinized defence witnesses.

The appeal was allowed, convictions vacated, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault.

At trial, he argued the complainant consented, relying on evidence from the complainant's former common law spouse.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, characterizing the issue as mistaken belief in consent and failing to address the spouse's evidence.

The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the courts below fundamentally misunderstood the defence advanced and failed to consider critical evidence, rendering the reasons inadequate for appellate review.

The appellant appealed a committal for extradition to the Republic of Korea for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

The appellant argued the record of the case lacked sufficient basis for committal and contained inconsistencies and translation issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the will-say statements provided sufficient evidence of fraudulent transactions to support committal.

The application for judicial review was also dismissed, as the Minister was not required to seek assurances that the appellant would be tried only on particularized allegations.

The three accused, former senior executives of Nortel Networks Corporation, were charged with two counts of fraud over $5,000.

The Crown alleged that they deliberately misrepresented Nortel's financial results by manipulating accrued liability balances to meet earnings targets and trigger bonus payments.

The court conducted a detailed review of Nortel's accounting practices, the use of accrued liabilities, and the restatements of its financial results.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately misrepresented the financial results or that the financial statements were materially misstated.

The accused were found not guilty on both counts.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the Republic of Korea, sought an order for the committal for extradition of the respondent for offences corresponding to conspiracy to commit fraud and fraud.

The respondent allegedly defrauded the Korean government of approximately $12 million CAD by illegally obtaining compensation for redeemed land.

The respondent argued the Record of the Case was manifestly unreliable due to translation errors and inconsistencies.

The court found sufficient available and reliable evidence on every essential element of the offences to justify committal and ordered the respondent's committal for extradition.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in granting only 1:1 credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the appellant was entitled to enhanced 2:1 credit due to the unavailability of parole and his desire to attend a treatment centre.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of granting 14 months and two weeks of pre-sentence custody credit.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder following the stabbing death of his former intimate partner.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in the final instructions to the jury, specifically regarding the 'rolled-up' instruction on the intent for murder, the assessment of the appellant's evidence, and the defence of provocation.

The Court of Appeal found that the 'rolled-up' instruction was inadequate because it failed to draw together relevant factors, such as the deceased's provoking words and conduct, and failed to instruct the jury to consider the cumulative effect of this evidence on the appellant's state of mind.

Concluding that the errors in the final instructions were not overcome by the overwhelming nature of the prosecution's proof, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for resisting arrest, arguing the trial judge erred in finding a lawful arrest without addressing whether the police used excessive force.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's actions of pulling his hands and hiding them under his stomach constituted forceful opposition.

The court also held that because the issue of excessive force was not argued at trial as it was on appeal, the trial judge did not err in failing to specifically address it.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to fairly and fully assess his alibi defence before finding guilt based on the credibility of the Crown's case.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge carefully reviewed the alibi and provided several valid reasons for rejecting it, including the strength of the Crown's case and the appellant's failure to testify.

The appellant appealed his custodial sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to properly consider a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the sentencing judge incorrectly concluded that only incarceration could satisfy the objectives of general deterrence and denunciation.

The Court noted that a properly fashioned conditional sentence can meet these objectives, and highlighted that the equally culpable co-accused received an 18-month conditional sentence despite having a prior record.

The appeal was allowed, and an 18-month conditional sentence was substituted for the youthful first-time offender.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, extortion, attempted robbery, and failure to comply with probation.

He argued the trial judge provided inadequate reasons and failed to properly assess eyewitness identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the convictions, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficient and the identification evidence reliable.

However, applying the Kienapple principle, the court stayed the extortion conviction and quashed a duplicate probation breach conviction.