Suhail A.Q. Akhtar

The appellant appealed her convictions for assault causing bodily harm, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and failing to provide the necessaries of life in relation to her infant son.

She argued that inculpatory statements made during a police interview should have been excluded because she was psychologically detained and not advised of her right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the appellant was not detained, as she had been told she was free to leave, had previously been given her Charter rights, and went to the station voluntarily.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences against his nieces and great-niece.

The trial judge had stated that allegations of sexual misconduct made against a family member are inherently more credible than those against a non-family member due to the explosive nature of such complaints.

The Court of Appeal held that this analytical framework was improper and constituted a reversible error.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and uttering a threat, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence, reached an unreasonable verdict, and failed to properly scrutinize the frailties of the sole eyewitness's identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge's misapprehension of evidence did not cause a miscarriage of justice and the verdict was not unreasonable, the trial judge erred by failing to adequately analyze the specific frailties of the eyewitness identification, particularly given the lack of corroborating evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.