Zachary Kerbel

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing his credibility and that of a trainee police officer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error.

The trial judge permissibly rejected the appellant's testimony because it contrasted starkly with the senior police officer's account and differed materially from the version suggested by defence counsel during cross-examination.

The trial judge was also justified in attaching more weight to the senior officer's testimony than to the trainee officer's, given the latter's lack of independent recollection and limited experience.

The applicant in an extradition proceeding brought a motion for the production of documents, to cross-examine the certifying U.S. attorney, and to examine her prior counsel.

The applicant sought to explore an allegedly untruthful statement in the Record of the Case regarding her history of drug trafficking in Canada, arguing it constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no air of reality to the assertion that the requesting state deliberately attempted to mislead Canadian courts.

The court also found no basis to order the examination of prior counsel regarding an allegation of ineffective assistance.

The appellants were convicted of first-degree murder for an execution-style shooting related to a drug debt.

On appeal, they argued that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding unsavoury witnesses (Vetrovec warning) and the defence of abandonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's continuum approach to the Vetrovec warnings, his instructions on confirmatory evidence, or his charge on abandonment.

Multiple appellants challenged jury convictions for two first degree murders and attempted murder arising from a retaliatory gang-related shooting.

The court rejected allegations of unfair trial management, unfair jury instructions, improper admission of prior K.G.B. statements and preliminary inquiry evidence, erroneous refusal of severance, improper admission of intercepted artistic expression, and misdirection on cell phone location evidence.

Applying a threshold reliability analysis informed by Khelawon, the court upheld admission of a key unavailable witness's prior statements.

The court also dismissed a fresh evidence application concerning synchronization of 911 and carrier clocks, holding the proposed evidence would not reasonably have affected the verdict given the broader evidentiary record.

The appellant appealed her conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, seeking to set aside her guilty plea.

She argued her trial counsel provided ineffective representation and that her plea was not voluntary or informed due to threats from her co-accused and a lack of understanding of the immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice from the alleged ineffective assistance and concluding the plea was both informed regarding deportation risks and voluntary, as the allegations of threats were not credible.

The appellant was convicted of infanticide in 1999 based on the expert pathology evidence of Dr. Charles Smith, who opined that her four-month-old son was smothered.

Following the Goudge Inquiry, fresh expert evidence conclusively refuted Dr. Smith's findings, demonstrating that the child likely died of accidental asphyxia in an unsafe sleeping environment.

The Crown conceded that the fresh evidence should be admitted and the conviction quashed.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal, noting the profound miscarriage of justice.