The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld Peter Nygardâs convictions and 11-year sentence, finding the expert-evidence error harmless, similar-fact use proper, and fresh sentencing evidence unhelpful.
The trial judge's response to the jury question was reasonable, made after consulting counsel, and did not create a realistic possibility of jury misunderstanding such as to require a mistrial or vacating of interim verdicts; the Crown's closing submissions invited permissible inferences grounded in the evidence and did not render the trial unfair; the sentencing judge applied correct principles, considered mitigating factors and imposed a sentence within the applicable range; fresh medical evidence admitted on consent would not have changed the sentence. Conviction and sentence appeals dismiâŚ
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to reopen a sentence appeal, finding insufficient evidence that Aboriginal heritage would likely have changed the sentence.
Court of Appeal varied a young offenderâs sentence after finding the global term unfit, replacing it with shorter concurrent custody and extended probation.