Sarah Strban

The appellants were convicted of distributing child pornography, advertising sexual services, procuring a person under 18, and receiving financial benefit from sexual services provided by a minor.

They appealed their convictions, arguing errors in Vetrovec instruction and jury misdirection on procurement.

They also sought leave to appeal their sentences, alleging the trial judge made findings of fact inconsistent with the jury's verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the Vetrovec decision or the jury instructions on procurement, noting the overwhelming evidence of control.

On the sentence appeal, the court agreed the trial judge erred by relying on violence allegations for sentencing after acquittals on related charges.

While this reduced the fit sentence for procurement, the overall global sentences remained appropriate for one appellant.

For the other appellant, fresh evidence regarding his rehabilitation and current circumstances led to a stay of execution for the remainder of his sentence.

The applicant, F.N., sought bail after being charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder following the poisoning of two young children with sodium nitrite, resulting in one fatality.

The court considered the three grounds for detention under the Criminal Code, with particular focus on the tertiary ground, which assesses whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Despite the applicant presenting strong sureties and a reasonable release plan, the court found the Crown's circumstantial case to be formidable, given the applicant's access to the chemical and familiarity with the victims' household.

The gravity of the offence, involving the deliberate poisoning of defenceless children, was deemed extremely high.

The application for bail was dismissed, as the court concluded that a reasonable, informed member of the public would lose confidence in the administration of justice if the applicant were released under these circumstances.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking and sought leave to appeal his 53-month sentence.

The conviction appeal argued that the trial judge erred in allowing the Crown to cross-examine a defence witness (Christopher Small) on his knowledge of Charter s. 13 and Canada Evidence Act s. 5 protections, which the appellant claimed improperly impeached the witness's credibility.

The Court of Appeal found the cross-examination permissible because the defence had introduced the witness's motive for testifying, and the Crown's questions challenged the veracity of that explanation.

The sentence appeal sought a reduction based on potential deportation and the impact of COVID-19.

The court dismissed both appeals, finding the sentence was not excessive and the trial judge did not err in considering collateral consequences or COVID-19.