Scott Cowan

The appellant, Landi Hanna, appealed a 4-year sentence for two counts of robbery (one causing wounds) and one count of failure to comply with an undertaking.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by not respecting the "jump" principle and by imposing a disproportionate sentence that relegated rehabilitation to a secondary role.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error, affirming that the sentencing judge correctly identified denunciation and deterrence as paramount objectives for robbery, properly considered aggravating factors including the appellant's criminal record and re-offending while on release, and appropriately applied the "jump" principle given the appellant's pattern of committing serious robberies shortly after being granted bail.

The court also found that the sentencing judge reasonably concluded the appellant's rehabilitative potential was low due to his repeated criminal history and lack of serious engagement in addressing his drug addiction.

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

The appellant, Cedric Agard, appealed a global sentence of eight-and-a-half years imposed for multiple drug and firearm offences.

He argued the sentence was harsh and excessive, specifically contending that the sentencing judge did not grant sufficient credit for time spent in harsh jail conditions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the sentencing judge had carefully considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's personal circumstances and the harsh jail conditions, and that the sentence was within the appropriate range and not demonstrably unfit or based on an error in principle.

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

The appellant, Vincent Bauer, appealed his conviction for three counts of sexual assault, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appeal focused on trial counsel's failure to effectively cross-examine the complainant, to put the appellant's denial of the allegations to the complainant, and to raise an unsupported automatism defence inconsistent with the appellant's instructions.

The court found that counsel's actions amounted to incompetence and resulted in a miscarriage of justice, rendering the verdict unreliable.

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

The accused was charged with multiple counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking after a police officer approached his parked vehicle, detained him, and discovered drugs.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention, denial of the right to counsel, and unreasonable search.

The court found that the initial detention was arbitrary and based on mere suspicion, violating section 9.

The court also found a violation of section 10(b) because the accused was not informed of his right to counsel without delay.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the drug evidence under section 24(2).

The accused stood trial on nine counts arising from a head-on collision causing serious injuries to three persons, including impaired driving causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and driving over 80 causing bodily harm.

The central contested issue was causation, particularly which vehicle crossed the centre line on a rural stretch of Highway 2.

Applying the dangerous driving authorities and the Smithers/Nette causation standard, the court accepted the Crown's lay and reconstruction evidence, found that the accused was speeding, disregarding lane markings, driving on the wrong side of the road, and highly impaired, and held that his conduct was a significant contributing cause of both collisions and the bodily harm suffered.

Findings of guilt were entered on all counts, with formal convictions deferred for further submissions concerning Kienapple.

Following a jury conviction for multiple sexual offences against a minor family member, the court imposed sentence.

The offences involved oral sex and sexual intercourse with penetration committed against a 14‑year‑old relative in circumstances involving breach of trust and grooming behaviour.

The court considered mitigating factors including the offender’s developmental limitations, illiteracy, employment history, and supportive family, but emphasized aggravating factors such as the victim’s age, the familial relationship, substance use, and ongoing denial of responsibility.

The victim impact statement established significant long‑term psychological harm.

The court concluded that denunciation and deterrence were paramount and imposed a penitentiary sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately convey his position and the pertinent evidence in the jury charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the charge was adequate when read fairly as a whole, noting that defence counsel had raised no objection at trial.