T. Kranjc

The accused, alleged to be the getaway driver in a series of nine armed robberies, appeared for a 90-day detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused proposed a new surety and argued the Crown's case was weak.

The court found the proposed surety unsuitable and the Crown's case formidable on at least one count.

Applying the secondary and tertiary grounds, the court concluded that the accused's continued detention was necessary to prevent further offences and maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

He argued the trial judge erred by not staying proceedings due to the police's failure to video record his arrest and transport, and by failing to adequately consider a defence witness's testimony.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the police had no duty to create video evidence and that the trial judge provided sufficient reasons for rejecting the defence witness's testimony.

The Crown appealed a sentencing decision in which the judge refused to impose an order under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) following the respondent's guilty plea to sexual assault.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the sentencing judge committed a jurisdictional error, as the Criminal Code mandates a SOIRA order for designated offences, including sexual assault, leaving no discretion to refuse.

The court granted certiorari to quash the original order and imposed a 10-year SOIRA order.

The Crown applied for certiorari with mandamus in aid to review a preliminary inquiry judge's decision discharging the respondents on charges of first degree murder.

The preliminary inquiry judge had committed one respondent for second degree murder and the other for accessory after the fact, concluding there was 'no evidence' of planning and deliberation.

The Superior Court found that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by concluding there was no evidence, rather than insufficient evidence, given the circumstantial evidence of the respondents following the deceased and shooting him.

The application was granted, the discharges quashed, and the matter remitted with a direction to commit both respondents for first degree murder.

During a lengthy criminal trial involving charges arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision, the Crown sought to call an additional accident reconstruction expert after the trial had already commenced and after the Crown’s primary reconstruction witness had testified.

The defence objected, arguing that the late disclosure of the expert report caused significant prejudice and that the court should exclude the evidence in the interests of trial fairness.

The court considered s. 657.3 of the Criminal Code and authorities addressing remedies for late expert disclosure.

It held that exclusion of relevant evidence is an exceptional remedy and that the prejudice to the accused could be addressed through a brief adjournment allowing the defence to consult its own expert.

The court therefore permitted the Crown to call the additional expert subject to an adjournment for the defence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge erred in preferring the opinion evidence of five Crown witnesses based on their past experience with impaired drivers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no prejudice because all opinion and observational evidence, along with the appellant's admission of drinking, supported a conclusion of impairment, and there was no defence evidence to the contrary.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and kidnapping and sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment.

At trial, the defence argued the complainant was a willing participant in an insurance fraud scheme, relying on the appellant's statement to police.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding reasonable doubt, motive, and the failure to give a Vetrovec warning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the jury charge.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 5-year sentence was not manifestly unreasonable despite the appellant being a first offender.