Wesley David Dutcher-Walls

This case addresses the intersection of mental illness and criminal law, involving charges against the accused for carrying a weapon for a dangerous purpose and multiple breaches of a release order.

The court found that the accused, suffering from a significant mental disturbance, was not proven to have an "operating mind" for the voluntariness of her utterances to police, leading to their exclusion.

Furthermore, the court identified breaches of the accused's Charter rights under s. 10(a) (timely information of arrest reason) and s. 10(b) (timely and private access to counsel), leading to the exclusion of further evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Crucially, the court determined that due to the accused's mental state, the Crown failed to prove the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt for both the fail to comply charges (lack of knowledge of bail conditions) and the weapons dangerous charge (inscrutable purpose).

Consequently, all four charges were dismissed.

A jury found the appellant, a private investigator, guilty of wilfully attempting to obstruct justice.

The trial judge sentenced him to 18 months' imprisonment and three years' probation.

The appellant appealed the conviction and sought leave to appeal the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the jury instructions regarding intent or reasonable doubt, or the use of the Code of Conduct for private investigators.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal the sentence, finding the trial judge overemphasized general deterrence and imposed a disproportionate sentence.

The Court substituted the imprisonment with a two-years-less-one-day conditional sentence, including 12 months of house arrest followed by a curfew, recognizing the appellant's first-offender status and the collateral consequence of losing his private investigator's license.

The appellant, convicted of first-degree murder, appealed the dismissal of his "faint hope" application under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code.

The application judge had applied the 2011 amendments, which increased the judicial screening threshold from "reasonable prospect" to "substantial likelihood." Relying on R. v. Dell, the appellant argued this retrospective application violated s. 11(i) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded the violation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ruling that the "reasonable prospect" threshold applies to s. 745.6 applications for offences committed between January 9, 1997, and December 2, 2011, and remitted the application for a new screening hearing.

The appellant, Garrett Gauthier, appealed his convictions for accessing, possessing, making available, and making child pornography.

The appeal raised issues regarding the admissibility and scope of expert evidence on Skype technology, the trial judge's application of the legal test for third-party suspects (allegedly reversing the burden of proof), and misapprehension of evidence concerning Skype syncing and opportunity.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in failing to limit the scope of the expert's testimony regarding Skype, misapplied the third-party suspect framework, and misapprehended evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed, a new trial was ordered for the accessing, making available, and making child pornography counts, and an acquittal was entered for the possession count due to insufficient admissible evidence of knowledge.

The appellant, Thirumal Kanthasamy, sought leave to appeal his sentence for tractor trailer thefts and robberies, after his co-accused had their sentences reduced.

He argued for a reduction based on the principle of parity and changes in his personal circumstances, including new health issues (coronary artery disease, COVID-19 susceptibility) and increased family responsibilities due to his daughter's cerebral palsy and common-law partner's medical disability.

The Crown consented to a reduction from 8.5 years to 6.5 years based on parity but opposed further reduction based on the fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal accepted the fresh evidence but found that a sentence below 6.5 years would not be proportionate to the gravity of the offences, which involved the use of firearms.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to six and one-half years.

This appeal concerned the admissibility of evidence seized during a warrantless police entry following an anonymous tip.

The appellant, charged with drug offences, alleged that police staged the break-in and that a specific detective was the anonymous caller, violating his s. 8 Charter rights.

Following a successful first appeal that clarified the Crown's persuasive burden to disprove state actor involvement in a warrantless search, a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed the second trial judge's decision to admit the evidence, arguing the judge again misapplied the burden of proof and relied on irrelevant considerations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Crown had fulfilled its onus by providing additional evidence (cell phone records, whereabouts, voice samples) and that the trial judge's credibility findings, including accepting the officer's denials, were reasonable and open to her.