Roger Shallow

The young person appealed their convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in finding their acts aided in the commission of the offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's actions rendered it easier for the offence to be committed, and thus there was no error in the trial judge's conclusion.

The Crown appealed a sentencing judge's decision regarding a DNA order for a young person under s. 487.052(2) of the Criminal Code.

Although the respondent conceded the sentencing judge made errors in principle, the Court of Appeal found the judge's consideration of the statutory factors persuasive and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his sentence for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge erred in characterizing his driving as a breach of trust, finding he was a long-term alcohol abuser, and imposing an unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle regarding the breach of trust characterization, as the appellant assumed responsibility for driving the victim home.

The court also found evidence supported the alcohol abuse finding and concluded the sentence, while at the high end of the range, was not unfit given the aggravating circumstances.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for a sophisticated fraud committed while on probation for another crime of dishonesty.

The majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding it was not demonstrably unfit given the aggravating circumstances, including the appellant's prior record and lack of remorse.

Laskin J.A. dissented, finding the sentence unfit based on recent sentencing decisions.