Tanya M. Kranjc

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum to correct a mathematical error in its previous endorsement on a sentence appeal.

The court amended the sentence for breaking and entering and committing a sexual assault to 36 months, clarifying that the intended total sentence for all offences, taking into account time served and the principle of totality, is 62 months.

The respondent was convicted of possessing instruments adapted and intended to be used to commit forgery under s. 369(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge instructed the jury that 'adapted' meant 'suitable for'.

The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, finding the word ambiguous and interpreting it in favour of the accused to mean 'altered or modified'.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the French version of the statute clearly resolves any ambiguity, confirming that 'adapted' in s. 369(b) means 'suitable for'.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving, failing to comply with an undertaking, and threatening to damage property.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by assessing the complainant's credibility based solely on demeanour, failing to analyze significant inconsistencies in her evidence, and inappropriately considering the evidence globally across all counts.

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

The appellant challenged his convictions on the basis that the trial judge failed to give a Vetrovec warning and provided inadequate reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence and rejecting his testimony.

The court held that no Vetrovec warning was essential on the facts, and although fuller reasons would have been preferable, the reasons were adequate in the circumstances and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.

The court accepted the Crown's concession that the Kienapple principle required a stay of the breaking and entering and committing theft charge in favour of a theft under $5,000 conviction, and a stay of the weapon dangerous charge.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, the component sentences were varied accordingly, but the total sentence of five years and two months was upheld as fit.

The appellant appealed a jury conviction and advanced, among other grounds, ineffective assistance of counsel and improper use of evidence connected to a bail hearing.

Applying the governing two-part framework, the court held the proposed fresh evidence established neither incompetence nor a miscarriage of justice, and found the suggested alternative trial strategy would have exposed the appellant to highly prejudicial bad character evidence.

The court also held that the impugned questioning did not engage s. 13 of the Charter and did not violate s. 7 because the appellant was not confronted with his prior bail testimony and the reply evidence regarding the bail document was inconsequential.

The application to admit fresh evidence was dismissed and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed sentence from a three-year penitentiary term.

The court agreed that a conditional sentence was not appropriate given the nature of the offence, but held that the circumstances of the offence and the offender did not justify a penitentiary term.

Significant weight was given to the appellant's youth, lack of criminal record, the immediate context of the offence, genuine remorse, and fresh evidence showing meaningful rehabilitative progress.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced to two years less a day followed by 18 months' probation, together with a 10-year weapons prohibition order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code.