Sean Bernard Graham Aherne Biesbroek

The appellant appealed convictions for assault, sexual assault, and uttering threats against his wife, arguing the trial judge's reasons were insufficient and improperly applied the law on credibility assessment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding internal contradictions in the trial judge's credibility assessment of the appellant, rendering the reasons insufficient for appellate review.

The accused was convicted of extortion, transmitting an intimate image without consent, and three counts of breaching bail conditions.

The accused extorted money from his former intimate partner by threatening to distribute a sexually explicit video, and subsequently distributed the video despite receiving the money.

While on bail, the accused repeatedly contacted the complainant in violation of his release conditions.

The court emphasized the severe psychological impact on the victim and the need for denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the accused to a total of 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day in the penitentiary.

The appellant was convicted of child luring, invitation to sexual touching, making child pornography, criminal harassment, and uttering a death threat against a 12-year-old girl in Manitoba.

The main contested issue at trial was identity.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty as charged and imposed a net sentence of three years' imprisonment.

The appellant appealed both his convictions and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding that the circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the Snapchat account and phone numbers was overwhelming, and that the trial judge's reasoning path could be readily discerned from the evidence as a whole despite sparse reasons.

The court also found no reversible error in the trial judge's refusal to adjourn sentencing to permit a post-conviction Charter application.

The appellant, William Simpson, appealed his convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault.

He argued that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny, misapplied the guidance in R. v. W.(D.), and erred by relying on speculation and impermissible stereotypes.

The appellant also sought to admit fresh evidence from a clinical psychiatrist regarding his mental acuity at the time of trial.

The court dismissed the fresh evidence application, finding it lacked cogency, due diligence, and credibility.

On the merits of the appeal, the court found no error in the trial judge's W.(D.) analysis, no s.276 or Seaboyer error, and no erroneous reliance on common-sense assumptions.

The court affirmed that the trial judge's credibility assessment was rooted in the evidence and entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Jeffrey Mitchell, appealed his convictions for two counts of threatening death and his 90-day conditional sentence and two years probation.

The convictions stemmed from text messages sent to his former wife and her new partner, and a stick figure decal on his truck.

The appellant argued the trial judge improperly relied on propensity evidence, failed to apply the W.(D.) analysis, misapprehended evidence, and applied uneven scrutiny.

He also sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding his dyslexia and reliance on voice-to-text.

The Superior Court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the propensity evidence admissible for context, the W.(D.) principles correctly applied (evidenced by an acquittal on one count), no misapprehension of evidence, and no uneven scrutiny.

The fresh evidence application was denied due to lack of cogency and insufficient explanation for its late introduction.

The sentence was deemed reasonable and not manifestly unfit.

Dwayne Thomas, a correctional officer, was found guilty of sexual assault (vaginal penetration of an inmate under his direct supervision) and breach of trust.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, the abuse of authority, and the assault occurring in a private area beyond surveillance.

Mitigating factors included the offender's positive community relationships and support.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a global sentence of six and a half years in penitentiary, with concurrent sentences for both offences.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a 10-year s. 109 order, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The appellants, Jason Geil and Geil Style Enterprises Inc., appealed a finding of contempt for violating a consent order by dumping fill on wetlands.

They argued the motion judge erred by relying on hearsay, making a finding without evidence of the precise timing of the fill, and accepting a late-filed affidavit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the submissions.

The court held that the motion judge relied on firsthand evidence, the precise date of the fill deposit was not material as it occurred after the order, and accepting the late affidavit was within the judge's discretion.

The finding of contempt was entitled to deference.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act.

The parties agreed on a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, which the Tribunal approved.

A two-day video hearing was scheduled for October 2021.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to implement an inspection and maintenance program for soil berms and to retain a Qualified Person to assess potential off-site impacts.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a nearby resident who raised concerns about environmental conditions.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for documentary disclosure and scheduled a further pre-hearing conference to scope issues and consider mediation.

The defendants were convicted under the Conservation Authorities Act and sentenced to fines, incarceration, and a rehabilitation order.

They sought a stay of these orders pending appeal.

The court applied the test from R. v. Smug, considering whether the appeal was frivolous, whether continuation of the sentence was necessary in the public interest, and whether granting a stay would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court granted a stay of the incarceration and rehabilitation order but refused to stay the payment of fines, finding that the defendants had not demonstrated sufficient hardship and that allowing them to avoid payment would undermine public confidence given their history of similar violations and ongoing apparent non-compliance.

Sentencing for convictions for possession of child pornography, five counts of making child pornography available through a peer-to-peer file-sharing network, and making child pornography through preserved online chat transcripts.

The court held that denunciation and general deterrence are the primary sentencing principles for child pornography offences, emphasizing the role of internet-based sharing in perpetuating abuse, expanding offender communities, and causing permanent harm to victims.

The court treated the offender's lack of record, career damage, lengthy delay short of a Charter breach, and likely deportation as mitigating factors, but found the breadth of sharing activity, repeated conduct, curation of the collection, and the presence of highly depraved material to be significant aggravating features.

A global sentence of three years' imprisonment was imposed, with ancillary DNA, lifetime SOIRA, section 161, and forfeiture orders.

The accused, Henning Jonat, faced charges related to child pornography.

A blended voir dire was held to consider applications to exclude evidence based on alleged Charter breaches, including an s. 8 breach for obtaining subscriber information without a warrant (admitted by the Crown) and an s. 10(b) breach for questioning the accused after he expressed a desire to consult counsel.

The court found the s. 8 breach was in good faith pre-Spencer, and the s. 10(b) breach had minor impact, with the Crown not seeking to use the statements.

Other alleged breaches regarding chat logs, search warrant validity, and strip search were rejected.

All applications to exclude evidence were dismissed.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder in the death of her young son, brought an application to exclude statements she made to police.

She argued her arrest was premature, she was not brought before a justice within 24 hours, her right to counsel was violated, she was not properly advised of her jeopardy, and her statements were involuntary.

The court found a minor section 9 Charter breach for the delay in bringing her before a justice but granted no remedy.

The court dismissed the other Charter claims, finding the police had reasonable grounds for the initial arrest for failing to provide necessaries of life, and that the accused understood her right to counsel and her jeopardy at the time.

The October 13 statement was ruled voluntary and admissible, while an October 16 statement was excluded in oral reasons.