W.K. Winkler

The Crown appealed an order staying nine charges of fraud over $5,000 against the respondent due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The charges arose from alleged misrepresentations of a publicly traded company's financial affairs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's assessment of the inherent time requirements and his allocation of institutional delay.

The Court found no error in the application judge's conclusion that the Crown's accommodation of co-accused counsels' schedules contributed to the unreasonable delay, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his designation as a dangerous offender following convictions for attempted murder and aggravated sexual assault, arguing he should have been designated a long-term offender.

He submitted the trial judge erred by restricting his expert's testimony and rejecting the expert's opinion on his prospects for controlling his alcoholism.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly qualified the expert and was entitled to prefer the Crown expert's evidence that the appellant's prospects for treatment were extremely poor.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by admitting an agreed statement of facts from a previous mistrial and that doing so violated his s. 13 Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the statement was a voluntary admission and not equivalent to prior testimony.

However, based on fresh medical evidence, the court granted leave to appeal the sentence and deleted the requirement for 200 hours of community service from the appellant's conditional sentence.

The appellant employer was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after an employee was injured by a machine.

The justice of the peace dismissed the charges because the Crown failed to provide authoritative definitions or expert testimony for technical terms like 'pinch point' and 'lock-out'.

The summary conviction appeal judge allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal, agreeing that the justice of the peace erred in principle by requiring expert testimony when lay witnesses had provided evidence on the meaning of the terms.