Stephen Proudlove

The appellant was convicted of multiple counts of armed robbery and related offences based primarily on recognition evidence from a former romantic partner who identified him from a wanted poster.

The trial judge accepted this evidence while dismissing conflicting eyewitness descriptions.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by failing to critically analyze the problematic aspects of the recognition evidence and by ignoring exculpatory eyewitness testimony.

The Court concluded the verdicts were unreasonable, allowed the appeal, and entered acquittals on all counts.

Following a jury conviction for manslaughter by reason of failing to provide the necessaries of life, the court sentenced both parents for the death of their young child.

The sentencing judge found the respondents equally culpable because they ignored medical advice and obvious warning signs over an extended period, resulting in chronic malnutrition that materially contributed to death alongside an asthma attack.

Applying the sentencing fact-finding framework for jury verdict cases, the court distinguished more egregious child-death authorities involving deliberate abandonment or overt deprivation, but held that denunciation and deterrence had to predominate under the Criminal Code because the offence was committed against a vulnerable child.

A fit sentence was 30 months for each offender, subject to presentence and bail credit, with probation imposed on one respondent and ancillary DNA and weapons prohibition orders made.

A media applicant sought to vary a publication ban imposed during a criminal trial so that the offenders' and victim's names could be published while continuing to protect the identities of surviving children.

Applying the Dagenais-Mentuck framework, the court held that a broader ban shielding the adult offenders' identities was not necessary to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice or the relevant public interest in protecting vulnerable children.

The court distinguished authority concerning anonymity for child cyberbullying victims and emphasized the significant deleterious impact on the open court principle of withholding the names of adult offenders in a homicide case.

The publication ban was varied to prohibit only publication of the names of surviving children of the offenders.

Following convictions for manslaughter by failing to provide the necessaries of life to a child, a publication ban had been imposed under s. 486.5 of the Criminal Code protecting the identities of surviving siblings and information that could identify them.

A media organization sought to narrow or vary the ban, while counsel for the convicted parents requested the appointment of amicus curiae to advance the interests of the affected children.

The Crown ultimately supported narrowing the ban but took no position on the appointment of amicus.

The court considered competing interests between freedom of expression and the protection of vulnerable children.

The court appointed a child advocacy legal clinic as amicus curiae to assist in determining the proper scope of the publication ban before sentencing.

The offender was sentenced for four counts of aggravated sexual assault, one count of forcible confinement, and one count of assault.

The offender, who knew he was HIV positive, engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with multiple women without disclosing his status.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender infected one of the complainants with HIV.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 10.5 years, reduced to 5 years and 4 months after applying a 1.5-to-1 credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with aggravated sexual assault for failing to disclose his HIV-positive status to two intimate partners before engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse.

He was also charged with assault and forcible confinement of one of the partners.

The court rejected the accused's testimony that he had disclosed his status, finding it fabricated and inconsistent with his medical records and statements to public health nurses.

The court accepted the partners' evidence that they would not have consented to unprotected sex had they known of his HIV status.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with perjury for making false statements during a bail hearing on April 5, 2013.

The accused testified that his twin brother and a friend, rather than himself, had been operating his motor vehicle on four separate dates in 2012 when he was under a driving suspension.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the person operating the vehicle on all four dates through consistent and credible police officer testimony.

The court found that the accused knew the statements were false and intended them to mislead the court regarding his credibility and willingness to comply with court orders.

The accused was convicted of perjury.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing he was denied a fair trial because he was unrepresented and the trial judge failed to adequately assist him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had chosen to proceed without counsel rather than delay the trial further, and that the trial judge's assistance was adequate and did not result in an unfair trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge's reasons reflected a 2-for-1 credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a global sentence of 19 months, which the Crown acknowledged was outside the appropriate range.

The Court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence to time served (13 months).