Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Sentencing for a long-running workplace fraud and theft by a dental receptionist. The court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed custody, probation, restitution and a 10-year prohibition order.
The trial judge did not misapprehend or fail to consider material evidence; the evidence was reasonably capable of supporting convictions for breaching the Standards of Care Regulations (tether length) and for failing to provide adequate medical attention under s.22(b); the appellant did not establish a due diligence defence; the sentence, including a five-year conditional prohibition order and specified fines, was not demonstrably unfit; the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Applying Adams methodology the court fixed individualized sentences totalling 20 months before remand credit, found the 16 December offences formed part of the same criminal adventure and ordered them concurrent, awarded a remand credit of 300 days (calculated 1.5:1 per Carvery and s.719(3.1)) equal to ten months, and therefore imposed a 10-month conditional sentence order (CSO); ancillary orders included a DNA collection order for the secondary-designated offence, a 9-year-10-month driving prohibition under s.320.24 and victim surcharges, and no further probation given duration of CSO.
Source excerpt
The joint recommendation was accepted because it satisfied the Anthony‑Cook public interest test, was the product of informed, reasonable advocacy, and produced a sentence that is fit and proportionate to the gravity of armed robbery while recognizing mitigation; therefore two years' custody plus ancillary orders and restitution were imposed.
Source excerpt
The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD reasonably made a determinative negative credibility finding based on material inconsistencies and omissions about police visits and the provenance of a prohibition order, the appellant failed to obtain reasonably available corroboration, and the purported new evidence did not meet the strict s.110(4) threshold and therefore could not justify an oral hearing under s.110(6); accordingly the RPD's conclusion that the appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is confirmed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court of Appeal held the Federal Court did not err: the asserted claims of CA 646 were neither anticipated by AU 168 nor obvious; the inventive concept was properly identified (a sustained-release therapeutically useful dose of amphetamine that is resistant to abuse) with recourse to the specification where the bare chemical claims did not reveal inventiveness, and the prohibition order under the PM(NOC) Regulations was correctly upheld.
Source excerpt
British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed Cheryl McKinlay’s appeal from animal-cruelty convictions and sentence, upholding the evidentiary findings, counsel’s performance, and a ten-year animal prohibition.
The court sentenced Richard Stephen Voszler for drug and firearms offences, applying guilty plea and custody credit, and imposed concurrent terms plus DNA, forfeiture and firearm prohibition orders.
Given the extensive aggravating factors (multiple, prolonged frauds against vulnerable victims, prior related convictions, and offending while subject to conditional sentence/recognizance) denunciation and deterrence required significant custody. Applying totality and parity the court fixed fit individual terms then ensured aggregate proportionality and imposed a global custodial sentence of 44 months, granted stand-alone restitution of $38,841.50, declared proceeds of crime and imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $45,812.53 (reduced by restitution payments and with restitution taking pri…
Source excerpt
Given the trial judge's findings of longstanding neglect, the number of animals affected, the degree of harm including deaths and euthanasia, and the offender's role and responsibility, the trial judge did not err in principle and the lifetime prohibition and 60 day intermittent custodial sentence are not demonstrably unfit; appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
