Sean Bernard Graham Aherne Biesbroek

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 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.

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.