Purchase This Domain

Criminal procedure — Appeals — Sufficiency of reasons — Credibility findings — Defence theory of fabrication — Appellant convicted of sexual assault and choking to render the complainant incapable of resistance — Did the trial judge provide sufficient reasons for the convictions, particularly in addressing credibility findings and the defence theory of fabrication? — Reasons, when read contextually, adequately explained the basis for the convictionsEvidence — Credibility — Application of R. v. W.(D). — Credibility contest — Trial judge rejected defence witness’s evidence as inconsistent and unreliable — Complainant’s evidence accepted as consistent and credible — Did the trial judge err in applying the principles from R. v. W.(D)., including improperly staging a credibility contest? — Trial judge properly applied W.(D). and made distinct credibility findings

Criminal procedure — Appeals — Ineffective assistance of counsel — Appellant alleged trial counsel failed to present mental health evidence or pursue a not criminally responsible (NCR) defence — Did trial counsel’s performance fall below reasonable professional standards, causing a miscarriage of justice? — Test for ineffective assistance of counsel from R. v. Nnane applied — No miscarriage of justice foundCriminal procedure — Guilty pleas — Voluntariness and informed nature of pleas — Appellant claimed guilty pleas were uninformed and involuntary due to last-minute doubts and lack of plea inquiry by trial judge — Did the trial judge err in accepting the pleas? — Section 606(1.2) of the Criminal Code applied — Pleas found to be voluntary and informedCriminal procedure — Sentencing — Appellate review of sentence — Appellant sought leave to appeal sentence imposed by trial judge, arguing it was unfit — Were there grounds to interfere with the sentence? — No error in law or principle found — Leave to appeal sentence deniedEvidence — Mental health evidence — Use of medical reports in plea negotiations and sentencing — Appellant argued trial counsel failed to adequately investigate or present mental health evidence — Did trial counsel reasonably address mental health issues? — Trial counsel’s use of medical reports deemed reasonable — NCR defence not supported by evidenceRights and freedoms — Open courts — Sealing orders and publication bans — Appellant sought to seal medical and psychiatric information in appellate record — Should a sealing order or publication ban be granted? — Strong presumption of open courts applied — Request denied as no exceptional circumstances demonstrated

Criminal infractions — Sentencing — Possession for the purpose of trafficking — Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of 1,279 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking — Sentenced to three years in custody — Whether the sentencing judge erred in ruling out a conditional sentence, failed to consider the appellant’s specific circumstances, or imposed a manifestly unfit sentence — Importance of denunciation and deterrence — Sentence upheld as appropriate and consistent with similar casesCriminal procedure — Sentencing appeals — Conditional sentences — Appellant argued sentencing judge erred in ruling out a conditional sentence based solely on the quantity of cocaine — Court held that the sentencing judge did not implicitly rule out conditional sentences for such cases but found a custodial sentence appropriate based on the circumstances — No error in principleCriminal procedure — Sentencing appeals — Tailoring sentences — Appellant argued sentencing judge failed to consider his specific circumstances, including mitigating factors such as guilty plea, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts — Court found sentencing judge reviewed and acknowledged these factors but concluded custodial sentence was warranted due to the quantity of cocaine and need for deterrence — No error in principleCriminal procedure — Sentencing appeals — Fitness of sentence — Appellant argued three-year custodial sentence was manifestly unfit — Court held sentence was consistent with similar cases involving over one kilogram of cocaine — Sentence not disproportionate or manifestly unfit — Appeal dismissed