Shannon McPherson

The accused was charged with robbery and wearing a disguise in connection with an alleged robbery on October 28, 2016.

The Crown's case relied on hearsay evidence: a 911 call and a videotaped statement from a witness who claimed complete amnesia at trial.

The court excluded both pieces of hearsay evidence, finding that the 911 call did not satisfy the res gestae exception and that the witness's statement failed to meet the threshold reliability requirements under the principled exception to the hearsay rule as refined in R. v. Bradshaw.

The court found the witness's testimony at trial was not credible and that the corroborative evidence from other witnesses was tainted and unreliable.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for assault and wilfully obstructing a peace officer.

The principal issue was whether the trial judge failed to provide the minimum level of assistance required to ensure a fair trial for a self‑represented accused.

The appellate court reviewed authorities establishing that trial judges must provide meaningful guidance to unrepresented defendants regarding the trial process, their rights to cross‑examine, testify, and call evidence.

The court found that the trial judge failed to explain the trial process, the elements of the offences, or the risks of testifying, thereby falling below the minimum standard required.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial ordered.

Sentencing for unlawful importation of approximately one kilogram of heroin into Canada.

The accused pleaded guilty after being intercepted at Pearson International Airport with narcotics concealed in a false-bottom suitcase.

The court considered aggravating factors including the quantity and nature of the Schedule I drug and the concealment method, but also weighed mitigating factors including the guilty plea, limited prior record, addiction issues, and significant systemic and background factors relevant to an Indigenous offender under s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.

The court further found that substantial delay and deficiencies in obtaining a proper Gladue report due to provincial administrative failures constituted state misconduct affecting the sentencing process.

Taking these factors into account, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence below the usual appellate range for large-scale heroin importation.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing approximately 2.963 kilograms of cocaine into Canada after the drugs were discovered concealed in suitcase linings at Pearson International Airport.

The Crown sought a seven‑year custodial sentence while the defence requested a five‑year sentence, relying on mitigating factors including the offender’s age, lack of criminal record, stable employment history, and role as a courier.

The court reviewed sentencing ranges established by appellate jurisprudence for large multi‑kilogram cocaine importations and emphasized denunciation and deterrence as the primary objectives in drug importation cases.

While recognizing several mitigating factors, the court found they did not justify departing from the established six‑to‑eight‑year sentencing range.

A custodial sentence at the low end of that range was imposed together with mandatory ancillary orders.

The Crown appealed a disposition for a breach of a conditional sentence order where the judge imposed an intermittent sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that an intermittent sentence under section 732 of the Criminal Code is not an available option for a breach of a conditional sentence under section 742.6(9).

The term 'intermittent' was deleted from the disposition.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of trafficking cocaine based on police eyewitness identification.

He appealed the convictions, arguing the trial judge's charge to the jury was deficient.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury to consider the identification evidence for each count separately, and by failing to relate the general caution on eyewitness identification to the specific weaknesses in the evidence raised by the defence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking and his 22-month sentence.

He argued that he was arbitrarily detained, unreasonably searched, and that his s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on intercepted communications and observations, and that the trial judge properly admitted the evidence despite a marginal s. 10(b) breach.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence to 18 months to credit the appellant for time served on subsequent charges that were withdrawn.