S. Borins

The appellant sought to pursue a personal claim against a municipality for loss of income arising while he was employed by a now-bankrupt company.

The court held that, as pleaded, the appellant had no cause of action against the municipality in his personal capacity, even though he was not purporting to advance a claim on behalf of the bankrupt corporation.

While the court did not fully agree with the motion judge's reasons, it agreed with the result.

The appeal was dismissed with costs and the cross-appeal was quashed without costs.

The appellant challenged a criminal conviction on the grounds that the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge erred in refusing a mistrial.

The court held that, although the case was circumstantial, the cumulative effect of the evidence, particularly the pathologist’s opinion and an unsigned letter, supported a verdict that a properly instructed trier of fact could reasonably render.

The court further held that the trial judge did not err in declining to grant a mistrial and that two letters tendered on appeal did not satisfy the Palmer criteria for admissibility as fresh evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a young offender, appealed conviction and sentence, arguing that a videotaped police statement was inadmissible because it was a continuation of earlier inadmissible statements.

The Court of Appeal held that the governing authority did not establish hard and fast rules on admissibility where the statutory criteria had been met, and upheld the trial judge’s findings that the statement was not tainted and that the appellant wanted to acknowledge responsibility.

The court found no error in admitting the videotaped statement.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence of four months open custody and community service was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant appealed a jury conviction for attempted murder arising from a shooting in which the complainant survived a gunshot wound to the head.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge’s instructions on accidental discharge and intent were confusing, legally flawed, and improperly focused on capacity when capacity was not in issue.

The court further found that the absence of a sharp limiting instruction on highly prejudicial bad character evidence, including drug use, trafficking, gang affiliation, and illegal handgun possession, undermined trial fairness.

The court also noted improper Crown submissions inviting speculation on motive and planning.

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