Timothy M. Kavanagh

The appellant, James Elliot Cornell, appealed his conviction for failing to provide a breath sample, arguing a breach of his s. 7 Charter rights due to delayed disclosure of a breath room video and reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge.

The Crown had provided the video to previous counsel and offered viewing opportunities to the self-represented appellant, which he did not fully utilize.

The appeal court found no s. 7 Charter breach, concluding the delayed disclosure was due to the appellant's lack of diligence and did not affect the trial outcome or fairness, as the video clearly showed an unequivocal refusal.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias, noting the trial judge's comments were contextualized by the case's lengthy history and the appellant's conduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

T.D. was convicted of sexual assault and extortion against his spouse, T.K., by repeatedly threatening to withdraw her immigration sponsorship and have her deported.

The court considered aggravating factors including abuse of spouse, abuse of a position of trust and authority due to T.K.'s vulnerable immigration status, and a pattern of abuse.

Mitigating factors included a minimal criminal record and a traumatic upbringing, though mental health issues were not sufficiently established to explain the conduct.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence.

A global sentence of 40 months imprisonment was imposed, with sentences for sexual assault (40 months) and extortion (14 months) to run concurrently due to their inextricable nexus as part of a single endeavour to obtain sexual favours.

Ancillary orders included a 20-year Sex Offender Registry order, mandatory DNA collection, a no-contact order, forfeiture of an offence-related cellphone, and a 10-year firearm prohibition.

The accused was arrested following a nightclub shooting and placed in a dry cell for approximately two hours before police collected gunshot residue samples from his hands.

He was not provided an opportunity to contact legal counsel until after the samples were taken.

The accused brought a Charter application arguing his s. 10(b) rights were violated.

The court found that the police failed to facilitate the accused's right to counsel at the earliest practicable opportunity and that the delay was unreasonable.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that admitting the gunshot residue evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.