Solomon Chaim Friedman

The appellant appealed a firearms prohibition and forfeiture order made under section 117.05(4) of the Criminal Code.

The order was initially granted after the appellant, a university student, wrote disturbing comments on an exam, prompting police to seize his lawfully owned firearms.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the hearing judge erred in law by shifting the burden of proof from the Crown to the appellant and by relying on irrelevant considerations such as the number of firearms owned.

The order was set aside and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction acquittal on charges of impaired driving and refusal to provide a breath sample.

The appeal court held that the trial judge applied the wrong legal standard when assessing whether the police officer had reasonable grounds to demand a roadside screening test, requiring proof of probable impairment rather than a reasonable suspicion that alcohol was present in the accused’s body.

The court also found legal errors in the trial judge’s failure to provide reasons for excluding evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and in dismissing the impaired driving charge without permitting Crown submissions.

Given that the trial judge had already made final determinations on key issues, the matter could not be meaningfully remitted to complete the trial.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of assault causing bodily harm against a seven-year-old adopted daughter contrary to Section 267(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought 45 to 60 days imprisonment plus 12 months probation.

The defence sought a conditional discharge with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 15 months probation, finding that while a discharge would be contrary to the public interest given the serious nature of the assault and the victim's age, imprisonment was not necessary given the accused's guilty plea, remorse, lack of prior record, and positive community standing.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a certiorari application seeking removal of his name from the provincial sex offender registry.

The Court of Appeal held that the Criminal Proceedings Rules do not apply to a provincial registry maintained under provincial law.

The application should have been made to the Divisional Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The judge below lacked jurisdiction, so his decision was quashed, and the appeal was also quashed.