B.C. COURT OF APPEAL
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CRIMINAL LAW 2000

• 2000 BCCA 14 R. v. Bonneville
  The appellant appealed his conviction for three counts of sexual assault. The events took place when the complainant, who is the appellant’s niece, was between 8 and 15 years old. The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: (1) the trial judge should have found a reasonable doubt due to conflicting evidence about the date of the offence in count 1; (2) the complainant made prior inconsistent statements; (3) the evidence of the complainant’s failure to complain was not properly weighed; and (4) the transcript of a telephone conversation should not have been used. Held: The appeal is dismissed. (1) The trial judge did not accept the date of 4 May 1981 as being the date when count one allegedly occurred. Consequently, he was not left in doubt by the evidence as to whether the offence in fact occurred. (2) The trial judge’s finding regarding the prior inconsistent statements is based on his determination of the witnesses’ credibility, and should not be disturbed; (3) the trial judge assessed the complainant’s failure to complain and his judgment should not be disturbed; (4) the transcript of the telephone conversation was entered in the presence of defence counsel and, accordingly, unless some evidentiary principle would exclude its use as relevant, it should be available for all purposes.
• 2000 BCCA31 R. v. Eng
  Sentence Appeal. Where an accused successfully appeals conviction, but is again convicted on retrial, the second sentencing judge may impose a greater sentence than the first judge where new facts have emerged since the original sentence. Here there was new evidence as to a significant deterioration in the appellant's attitude towards his mental illness, his need for treatment, and the prospects of rehabilitation.
• 2000 BCCA 18 R. v. Valois
  Sentence appeal - 18 months sentence on conviction for escaping lawful custody - reduction of sentence from 18 months to 12 months sought on ground that 3 months spent in custody in U.K. as result of extradition proceedings. Sentencing judge declining to take 3 months into account on sentence. No error in principle on facts. Appeal dismissed
• 2000 BCCA 20 R. v. Khuc, Bui, Pham & Tran
  Police officers obtained a warrant to search a house for drugs on the basis of information collected through the purchase of drugs by an undercover officer. Upon executing the warrant the accused were present in the house. They sought to challenge the validity of the warrant on the grounds that they did not live in the premises. The trial judge refused to entertain the challenge because the accused did not establish a privacy right to the premises.  The appeal was dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 21 R. v. L.S.U.
  Appeal adjourned.
• 2000 BCCA 25 R. v. Goodhart
  The appeal of a conviction for theft was allowed and a new trial ordered so as to assure the accused of a fair trial. A witness adamantly testified that the driver of the stolen van had no facial hair. At the end of the trial, the Crown produced to accused's counsel the notes of one of the arresting officers which described the accused, the man arrested, as having a goatee with sideburns. The notes were relevant evidence that the accused was entitled to use in dealing with the Crown's case and in making the decision to testify. There was no suggestion of either the Crown's bad faith or the accused's lack of diligence about his rights.
• 2000 BCCA 29 R. v. Wilder
  Mr. Wilder was charged with criminal fraud, the essence of the alleged fraud being inflated claims for expenses incurred for research under the Scientific Research Tax Credit scheme under the Income Tax Act. The essential issue on this appeal was the admissibility in proof of the criminal charge of "taxpayer information" provided by Mr. Wilder and others as required by the Income Tax Act.  The trial judge acquitted the accused on a "no evidence" motion after finding that none of the taxpayer information relied on by the Crown was admissible in proof of the charges. That finding was based on the decision of this court in R. v. White, (1998), 122 C.C.C. (3d) 167 (affirmed by S.C.C. (1999), 174 D.L.R. (4^th) 111) that an admission made as required by the provincial Motor Vehicle Act could not be used against the driver in proof of a charge of "hit and run" under the Code. The trial judge held that the reasoning in R. v. White precluded any information obtained under statutory compulsion being admitted in proof of a criminal charge.  HELD: Neither R. v. White nor any other authority dealing with the privilege against self-incrimination supports the conclusion of the trial judge. The taxpayer information was therefore wrongly excluded.
• 2000 BCCA 30 R. v. Takhar
  A review of the evidence and reasons for judgment demonstrated that the trial judge did not, as alleged by the appellant, overlook or fail to appreciate the evidence or fail to give it proper weight. The appeal from conviction for sexual assault was dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 32 R. v. Karbin
  Leave application. Procedural matters. Jurisdiction. By the time of the instant application, the appellant had received an absolute discharge from a provincial court conviction. The original conviction had not been appealed for lack of transcripts; however, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion twice in procedural matters, granting orders unaccompanied by reasons. It is these two procedural orders the appellant wishes to appeal. Since no reasons accompany the procedural orders, this Court has jurisdictional concerns. An appeal from an exercise of judicial discretion in a procedural matter does not raise a question of law alone unless the exercise of discretion is based on reasons not well founded in law. This case did not raise a question of law. Assuming this Court had jurisdiction, the appeal would not be successful and it does not meet the criteria for importance established by this Court.
• 2000 BCCA 33 R. v. Veale
  Leave to appeal granted in Chambers. The instant appeal arises from an appeal of a summary conviction in a domestic dispute. The issues raised in the leave application met the threshold test: the application could not be dismissed as raising issues that were bound to fail. The issues concern the defence of self-defence in a domestic dispute.
• 2000 BCCA 37 R. v. Noble
  Appeal dismissed as abandoned.
• 2000 BCCA 38 R. v. Anderson
  Reference under Rule 13(3) - adjourn reference to later date.
• 2000 BCCA 44 R. v. Kaminski
  The application for leave to appeal was refused on jurisdictional grounds. The order was for the dismissal for want of prosecution of an Application for an Extension of Time to File Appeal from a deemed conviction under the Motor Vehicle Act. There was no question of law when someone failed to turn up in court and the judge dismissed the application. No question of merit was properly before this Court; that was for the Court below to hear.
• 2000 BCCA 49 R. v. Loten
  Appeal dismissed as abandoned.
• 2000 BCCA 57 R. v. McCormack
  This conviction appeal was based on a challenge to the trial judge’s ruling that a warrantless seizure of narcotics and firearms from the appellant’s residence was not a breach of section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the requirements of s. 11(7) of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act were met. Saunders J.A., for the Court, dismissed the appeal. In s. 11 of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, the Parliament of Canada has enacted legislation which gives lawful authority for a warrantless entry. A search properly conducted under that section is a search authorized by law. As no challenge is made either to the breadth of the legislation or the reasonableness of the manner of the search, the s. 8 question in this case is whether this warrantless entry met the criteria in s.11(7). Two conditions must be satisfied: the conditions ordinarily required to obtain a search warrant must be present, and exigent circumstances must exist which make it impracticable to obtain a search warrant. In this case, the police had ample information on which to obtain a search warrant. Accordingly, the first condition is met. As for the second condition, the trial judge found there were exigent circumstances. Although this finding is challenged by the appellant, there was evidence before the trial judge on which to find that the police had the requisite belief that someone may have been going to the appellant’s apartment with the intention of destroying evidence. That finding of fact cannot be assailed on the record. Further, there was evidence to support the trial judge’s objective conclusion that exigent circumstances existed within the meaning of s. 11(7), that is, "which made it impracticable to obtain a search warrant". Accordingly, the conditions of s. 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are met.
• 2000 BCCA 63 R. v. McDougall
  Second Degree Murder – Jury Trial – Appeal – Reasonable Doubt. Appellant’s defence that culprit could have been a third party who was at the scene of a stabbing resulting in death. Evidence all circumstantial. The trial judge responding to jury question asking, "If you believe there is any chance that someone else committed the act does that constitute reasonable doubt? (i.e. not a frivolous concern" by equating "chance" with "possibility" and answering "no". Charge dealing with reasonable doubt read back in full at request of defence counsel. No error shown and appeal dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 75 R. v. Robinson
  The court allowed an appeal from conviction for second degree murder because the trial judge erred in her approach to a section 24(2) application under the Charter. The trial judge admitted two statements made following a violation of the accused’s right to consult counsel. Huddart J.A. applied the analysis of Rosenberg J.A. in R. v. Caputo (1997), 114 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.)in ruling the statements should have been excluded.
• 2000 BCCA 83 R. v. Shearing
  Criminal – sex offences – admissibility of similar fact evidence – complainant’s privacy – cross-examination – personal diary – authority and consent The appellant and spiritual leader of the Kabalarian Philosophy, Ivon Shearing, was convicted of multiple counts of sex offences on his followers. The indictment involved eleven complainants and spanned the years 1965-1990. Mr. Shearing appealed on three main grounds alleging that: (1) similar fact evidence as between the counts was improperly admitted; (2) cross-examination on a complainant’s diary was unduly restricted; and (3) the charge on authority and consent failed to differentiate between counts occurring before a Code amendment in 1983 and those that came after the law was changed. Held: Appeal allowed on two counts; dismissed in all other respects. Despite dissimilarities, the facts in this case satisfied the requisite degree of similarity. The failure of the trial judge to review the dissimilarities in his charge was an imperfection, not amounting to reversible error. The trial judge also did not err in restricting the scope of cross-examination with respect to a complainant’s diary and specifically the fact that the diary did not disclose reference to the abuse. The privacy interests of the complainant outweighed the probative value of the evidence sought to be adduced, which in light of R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411 was minimal. The impugned ruling finds further support in the recent decision of R. v. Mills, [1999] S.C.J. No.68 (QL) (S.C.C.) which shifts the balance away from the primary emphasis on the rights of the accused and requires a reconsideration of the position of the complainant, and in particular the privacy and equality interests at stake. The blanket charge to the jury on authority and consent was in error as it relates to the counts preceding the 1983 Criminal Code amendment. Only after 1983 was "the exercise of authority" a factor capable of vitiating consent. The error affected only the pre-1983 counts where consent was in issue and on those counts the Court declined to invoke the curative proviso. Where the defence was a general denial, the error was not implicated in the jury’s deliberations.
• 2000 BCCA35 R. v. Halldorson
  The appellant appeals his sentence of 90 days imprisonment, followed by probation for 8 months, for common assault. He had assaulted a pedestrian who had slapped the trunk of his vehicle as he drove by. The pre-sentence report disclosed that the appellant had been convicted of assault on two prior occasions and that he failed to show remorse for this incident. Held: (Cumming and Braidwood J.J.A.): Leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed. No error in principle has been shown, and the appellant did not prove that the sentence is not fit. McEachern C.J.B.C.: This case is close to the line because it is uncertain whether the sentencing judge gave sufficient weight to s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code. However, the sentence in this case can be supported on the principles of denunciation. Violence is not acceptable conduct in our society and will be punished.
• 2000 BCCA 39 R. v. Meidel
  After he escaped lawful custody during preliminary applications for a stay of proceedings, the applicant was convicted in absentia in 1983, under s. 431.1 [now s. 475] of the Criminal Code. No jury had been empanelled, no plea had been taken. Three years later he was apprehended in the United States on unrelated offences. He was convicted by a U.S. court and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. After his arrest in the United States the applicant learned through counsel of his Canadian conviction. The applicant tried unsuccessfully to be returned to Canada before the expiration of his U.S. sentence. The applicant took no steps to determine his status until he was arrested in the United States. As a result he only formed the intent to appeal 3 years after his conviction. A partial record of proceedings exists, the rest was destroyed under the Document Disposal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c.95. Should a new trial be ordered it is unlikely that the Crown would be able to marshal the evidence once again. The applicant’s central ground of appeal was that he should not have been tried in absentia because he did not flee "in the course of his trial". Although there may be some merit to the appeal, the factors recounted including that of finality weighed against granting leave to appeal. The majority refused leave to appeal. Southin J.A. dissented holding that a trial commences for purposes of s. 431.1. When an accused pleads and is placed in the jury’s charge, the trial should not have proceeded in absence. Southin J.A. would grant leave to appeal.
• 2000 BCCA 50 R. v. McIsaac
  Appeal by accused against conviction and sentence for welfare fraud. Trial judge did not err in her instruction to the jury on appellant's alleged cognitive impairment from taking prescription medication, and did not err in her instruction on mens rea. The verdict was not unreasonable as there was ample evidence of both deprivation and intent. The order requiring appellant to make restitution of $44,456, the full amount of welfare benefits received, was fit and in accord with principle.
• 2000 BCCA 51 R. v. Vu et al.
  Criminal - conviction appeal - possession of stolen property - alternative inference - circumstantial evidence - reasonable doubt. The appellants, Van Chinh Vu and Thi Dang Pham, were convicted of possession of stolen property over $5,000. Stolen clothing items were seized from the trunk of a vehicle driven by Mr. Vu and in which Ms. Pham was a passenger. Appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed. Held: Appeal of Thi Dang Pham allowed., namely, that she was not present when the property was put into the vehicle. Appeal of Van Chinh Vu dismissed. The alternative inference regarding Ms. Pham went beyond speculation. In terms of Mr. Vu, the circumstantial evidence was very strong. When the Crown has proved its case by circumstantial evidence, the appellant will be convicted unless he calls evidence to raise a reasonable doubt. The inference of guilt cannot be displaced by speculation but by adducing an explanation which raises such a doubt: R. v. To (1992), 16 B.C.A.C. 223.
• 2000 BCCA 52 R. v. C.J.T.
  Consecutive sentences of 6 months for B & E and 6 months for theft over $5000, were upheld for a 16 year old offender with lengthy record.
• 2000 BCCA 61 R. v. Narayan
  The accused appeals his convictions for offences involving sexual touching. The accused made an application under ss. 278.3 to 278.5 of the Criminal Code for production of the complainant’s therapeutic records. Having found that the records were likely relevant to an issue at trial, the trial judge nevertheless dismissed the application. At issue on this appeal was the correctness of this determination. Also at issue were the admissibility of the expert evidence and the trial judge’s assessment of credibility.  Saunders J.A., for the Court, dismissed the appeal. Having instructed himself correctly on the mandatory factors to be taken into account and having assessed the evidence before him on the issue, the trial judge ultimately exercised his discretion against the production of the records. It was a decision which, on the record, he was able to make and it should not be interfered with. As to the admissibility of the expert evidence, it is settled law that an expert can testify regarding human conduct and psychological or physical factors relevant to credibility if the evidence goes beyond the ordinary experience of the trier of fact. The expert’s evidence fit easily within these parameters. As for the credibility issue, the trial judge’s reasons show that he was alive to these issues during the trial. It is for the trier of fact to determine the nature and significance of discrepancies in evidence, assess it, and accept all of it, part of it, or none of it.
• 2000 BCCA 68 R. v. Amabile
  Appellant's conviction under s. 212(4) of Code, enacted by R.S. 1997, c.16, was set aside with Crown's concurrence. (S. 212(4) was later repealed.) Court found that s. 213 did not create a lesser included offence; hence no conviction entered; and declined to amend indictment under s. 683(1)(g) of Code.
• 2000 BCCA 77 R. v. Black
  Applicant observed driving erratically by military police officers off their military base. M.P.'s administered an alcolmetre test, result of which inadmissible by summary appeal court judge resulting in acquittal by summary appeal court judge on charges of impaired driving and assaulting a peace officer. On leaving scene appellant struck one of the M.P.'s and drove at speeds in excess of 180 kph. Applicant contended evidence of subsequent conduct should be excluded by reason of breach of s.9 of Charter. HELD: Refusing leave to appeal, distinction must be drawn between evidence obtained as a result of a Charter violation and evidence of conduct which simply occurs after an alleged Charter breach. Further, in such a clear case of dangerous driving appeal bound to fail and leave refused.
• 2000 BCCA 96 R. v. Bailey
• 2000 BCCA 97 R. v. Tri-M Systems
  The Court has power to discharge an order of a single justice refusing leave to appeal under s. 124 of the Offence Act and thereupon to grant leave on a question of law.
• 2000 BCCA 102 R. v. Auger
  The appellant was charged with second degree murder and two counts of negligence causing bodily harm arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred when the appellant, apparently deliberately, drove on the wrong side of the road. At trial the appellant raised the defence of mental disorder or insane automatism which was rejected. On appeal the appellant contended the trial judge erred in rejecting the defence of mental disorder. HELD: Dismissing the appeal. The trial judge looked to the criteria now directed by R. v. Stone (1999), 173 D.L.R. (4^th) 66 to be taken into account, namely: (1) the objective facts of the offence; (2) possible motives for the offence; (3) the social and medical background of the accused; (4) her post-offence conduct and emotional reaction at the scene; and (5) the lack of independently tested corroboration, weighed in the light of psychiatric evidence.
• 2000 BCCA 103 R. v. Arts
  A new trial was ordered where it appeared that the trial judge, sitting without a jury, on a charge of dangerous driving causing death, had misdirected himself by imposing on the accused the burden of explaining, on a balance of probability, why his vehicle had crossed to the wrong side of the road.
• 2000 BCCA 113 R. v. Snow
  Dangerous offender – Application to adjourn refused The appellant appealed the 1993 finding that he was a dangerous offender following his conviction on 15 counts of offences involving brutal violence. The principal ground of appeal was that the trial judge erred in refusing to adjourn the proceedings because of a pending murder trial in Ontario. Held: Appeal dismissed. There was no error in refusing the adjournment and the appellant’s Charter rights were not infringed.
• 2000 BCCA 115 R. v. Hawkins
  Sentence of 4 years and a driving prohibition upheld for accused who had lengthy driving record including 13 or 14 previous convictions for impaired driving, driving while over .08 or failing to furnish a breath sample.
• 2000 BCCA 116 R. v. Truong
  Second degree murder: 15 year period of ineligibility for parole: the accused killed a four month old baby, ostensibly for the purpose of effecting reconciliation with the mother. Conflicting psychiatric evidence. Appeal dismised.
• 2000 BCCA 119 R. v. McLean
  Appeal from a sentence in a sexual assault - dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 117 R. v. Steele
  Conditional sentence; breach of condition. The trial judge imposed a conditional sentence for a collection of serious assaults upon his wife. When served with divorce papers the accused breached a no contact condition. The trial judge declined to imprison the accused in order to achieve restorative justice but added further conditions. The trial judge's disposition was upheld. Southin J.A. dissenting.
• 2000 BCCA 118 R. v. Vu
  Under the Narcotic Control Act, an analyst's certificate is not admissible unless the accused admits service or the Crown proves service under s. 9(4).
• 2000 BCCA 126 R. v. P.A.M.
  A global sentence of 22 months incarceration for sexual assaults against two young girls, to whom appellant stood in a position of trust as step-father and primary caregiver, where the assaults were frequent and prolonged, was not unfit. A conditional sentence would not provide adequate denunciation or deterrence in the cicumstances. A sentence of incarceration was not inconsistent with the recent judgments of the S.C.c. in R. v. Proulx and related cases. Appeal dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 128 R. v. M.J.W.
• 2000 BCCA 127 R. v. Murphy
  The Crown agreed with defence counsel that the conviction for dangerous driving should be set aside and an acquittal entered.
• 2000 BCCA 132 R. v. Peterffy
  Second Degree Murder - Evidence of Discreditable Conduct on the part of accused admissible as it described the nature of the relationship between accused and victim. Probative value outweighing its prejudicial effect. - Rebuttal evidence admitted where necessary to ensure a fair adversarial process.
• 2000 BCCA 134 R. v. A.F.L.
  Court finding that inquiry by judge concerning ability and understanding of young witness regarding necessity to tell the truth inadequate - new trial ordered by majority.
• 2000 BCCA 135 R. v. Mafi
  Mafi killed both the owner and an employee of the restaurant where he worked by stabbing them repeatedly with a knife from the kitchen. He was convicted of two counts of second degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for twenty years. On this sentence appeal the Court allows the appeal and reduces the period of parole ineligibility to fifteen years. Mr. Justice Lambert and Chief Justice McEachern, in separate reasons, concur in the result. Mr. Justice Braidwood dissents and would dismiss the appeal. The relevant sentencing principles are discussed.
• 2000 BCCA 136 R. v. Schikowski
  The appellant applied for leave to appeal his sentence of two years less a day imprisonment plus three years probation for a robbery conviction. He was subsequently sentenced to an additional 21 days for a conviction for being unlawfully at large. The sentence is within the appropriate range and is not demonstrably unfit. As such, this case is not with the criteria generally established for alteration of sentences, except to the limited extent of varying the imprisonment portion of the sentence from two years less a day to 23 months in order to accommodate the continuation of the probation order. Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is allowed to that limited extent.
• 2000 BCCA 137 R. v. Paterson
• 2000 BCCA 138 R. v. D.L.L.
  The appellant was convicted of invitation to sexual touching for incidents involving his five-year old daughter. This appeal relates to the inquiry into the ability of young witnesses to testify under s. 16 of the Canada Evidence Act and the adequacy of the charge to the jury. Held: The appeal is dismissed. This Court should not interfere with the discretion of the trial judge to allow the children to testify under s. 16(3). In addition, defence counsel did not object to the adequacy of the children’s testimony at trial. There is no merit to the appellant’s arguments relating to the instructions to the jury. The trial judge gave adequate warnings about the dangers in relying upon the evidence of young witnesses.
• 2000 BCCA 139 R. v. R.F.
  The appellant seeks a rehearing of that part of the decision of this court which dismissed his appeal against conviction on one of three counts. The appeal succeeded on the other two counts. The application is founded on an assertion that the members of the court misapprehended the evidence. The Crown submits that, the formal judgment having been entered, there is no jurisdiction to rehear. HELD: The application should be dismissed on the ground that no significant risk of a miscarriage of justice has been demonstrated. That being so, it is unnecessary to deal with the jurisdiction question but the court observed that, in the particular circumstances of this case, it would not likely refuse to rehear if it was satisfied of a significant risk of miscarriage.
• 2000 BCCA 140 R. v. Fournier
  Appellant convicted of second degree murder of wife and companion — Appellant argues that judge considered inadmissible evidence of prior threats and involuntary statement to prove state of mind — Threats evidence held admissible. If judge erred in limited consideration of statement, case an appropriate one for application of s. 683(1)(b)(iii). No error found in treatment of evidence of psychiatrists. Appeal dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 144 R. v. Hibbert
  The accused appealed his conviction on a charge of attempted murder, alleging errors in the judge’s charge to the jury on the issues of identification and false alibi. The Court held that the charge held on identification was not in error. Although the charge on false alibi was in error, the conviction was upheld, applying s.683(1)(b)(iii)
• 2000 BCCA 145 R. v. Kalashnikoff
  Criminal Law – conviction appeal – cocaine – "offer to sell" – substance analysis. Appeal of conviction for trafficking cocaine. Kalashnikoff alleged that the judge erred in finding that there was an offer to sell and that the substance in question was cocaine. Held: Appeal dismissed. The inference that Kalashnikoff offered to sell cocaine was compelling. The continuity of the substance was maintained despite the variation in the description of the substance. Testimonial evidence of the lab technician who ran the standard spectrum and calibrated the testing apparatus was unnecessary. The evidence established that the proper steps were followed leading to a reliable analysis.
• 2000 BCCA 148 R. v. Hall
  At trial, the appellant received a global sentence of 5 years incarceration on 4 counts of sexual assault involving 4 teenaged boys. The offences occurred between 1983 and 1989. In 1989 the appellant was convicted of touching two other boys for a sexual purpose, sentenced to 12 months in jail, and participated in a sexual offenders program, as well as subsequent treatment upon his release. There was no evidence of any offending conduct by the appellant in the period after his release from jail in 1989 and his arrest for the subject offences, nor in the period following his arrest up to the time of trial. Psychiatric evidence characterised the appellant as a pedophile, but recognized his apparent ability to control his sexual impulses in the last 10 years. He was considered to be either a low or moderate risk of re-offending sexually in the future. The Court substituted a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day to be served in the community, to be followed by 3 years probation. The conditions of sentence included a prohibition against being in the company of boys under the age of 16 years, unless accompanied by an adult, a prohibition against participating in any employment or volunteer activity that would involve his being in the position of trust or authority towards any male under the age of 16 years, without a supervisor’s consent, as well as a strict curfew.
• 2000 BCCA 149 R. v. McRae
  The court found no basis for the allegation that the appellant was incompetently represented by counsel. The appeal was dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 152 R. v. Chapman
  Crown sentence appeal heard with R. v. Forward. Conditional sentence imposed for conviction of impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. Primary ground of appeal was that the conditional sentence did not appropriately address the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. Held: Appeal dismissed. Sentencing judges are entitled to considerable deference from appellate courts: R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 8. The sentence was not unreasonable and accords with the principles set out in Proulx.
• 2000 BCCA 153 R. v. Forward
  Crown sentence appeal heard with R. v. Chapman. Conditional sentence imposed for conviction of impaired driving causing death. Crown position was that the duration of the sentence was unfit or alternatively that, in light of the principles of general deterrence and denunciation, Mr. Forward’s sentence ought to be converted to a custodial term. Held: Appeal dismissed. Sentencing judges are entitled to considerable deference from appellate courts: R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 8. The trial judge did not err in concluding that the unique facts at bar took the case outside the range (i.e. exceeding 2 years) established by the authorities. In considering the safety of the community, the question is whether the risk of re-offending is "real" or "minimal" and if "real", whether it can be reduced to "minimal" by the conditions of the sentence. Both aspects of the drinking and driving risk were reduced to a minimal degree. Whether a conditional sentence can meet the objectives of general deterrence, denunciation and proportionality is a matter of judgment. The trial judge did not strike an unreasonable balance with respect to the competing considerations.
• 2000 BCCA 157 R. v. Neale
  A plea bargain cannot be given the serious consideration that it should have if the sentencing judge is not told that there has been a plea bargain. The judge should be told and the weight to be given to the bargain may be greater where the submission is a joint one.
• 2000 BCCA 159 U.S.A. v. Huson
  The appellant was ordered extradited to the United States. He had pleaded guilty to "grand larceny in the third degree" in New York, but fled to Canada before he was sentenced. The appellant was unable to demonstrate that the extradition judge had erred in ordering his return to New York. The appellant did not demonstrate error in the refusal of the Minister of Justice to exercise her discretion in his favour. The appeal was dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 160 R. v. Finley
  These reasons should be read along with those in R. v. Kovacevic in which judgment is being delivered along with the judgment in this case and in R. v. Rhee. HELD: (Esson, Braidwood, Hall JJ.A.) for the reasons given in Kovacevic it was not error to follow the model charge in Brydon. The finding that Finley was not detained or arrested when he gave the impugned statements was a question of credibility and was supported by the evidence. The evidence of the girlfriend was relevant and admissible. The warning by the trial judge was sufficient to avert any danger of the jury placing undue weight upon it. This was a retrial pursuant to the decision in R. v. Finley (1996), 77 B.C.A.C. 70 where it was held that such a warning should have been given. Rowles and Newbury JJ.A. concur in the result.
• 2000 BCCA 161 R. v. Kovacevic
  This conviction appeal was heard along with R. v Rhee and R. v. Finley in which judgment is being delivered along with this judgment. These appeals were heard by a five-member court at the request of the Crown to consider whether R. v. Lowns (1998), 131 C.C.C. (3d) 295 (B.C.C.A.) should be overruled. In Lowns the appeal of the accused was allowed on the ground that the charge did not conform in several respects with the model charge suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 in which judgment was delivered after the trial in Lowns. In Lowns, this court found five errors. In respect of each, the charge was in accord with authorities, then binding on the trial judge, which either required or approved of the language used. The errors alleged in this case, in which the charge was given before Lifchus, were also in compliance with the precedents in force at that time but did not conform with the charge suggested in Lifchus. HELD: (Esson, Braidwood, Hall JJ.A.): The court erred in Lowns in giving retroactive effect to the suggested charge which was intended only to apply prospectively. Prior to Lifchus it was not an error to charge the jury, as was done in this case, in accordance with the model charge set out in R. v. Brydon (1995), 95 C.C.C. (3d) 509 (B.C.C.A.). HELD: by Rowles and Newbury JJ.A. concurring in the result: The court in Lowns did not give retroactive effect to the Lifchus charge but merely held that the combined effect of the errors led to the inference that the jury may not have understood the meaning of reasonable doubt as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada.
• 2000 BCCA 162 R. v. Rhee
  These reasons should be read along with those in R. v. Kovacevic in which judgment is being delivered along with the judgment in this case and in R. v. Finley. HELD: (Esson, Braidwood, Hall JJ.A.; Rowles and Newbury JJ.A. dissenting). The appeal should be dismissed. for the reasons giving in Kovacevic , the allegations of errors of omission in the charge have no merit. The statement in R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 that the words "beyond a reasonable doubt" have a specific meaning in the legal context are similar to the words "not a legal term having some special connotation" which was held in Lifchus to be reversible error. Assuming that that part of the decision in Lifchus would apply to cases decided earlier, the error here could not have mislead the jury. When assessing the adequacy of the language used in charging the jury on reasonable doubt, the test is whether the charge as a whole gives rise to any likelihood that the jury misapprehended the standard of proof and, in this case, there is no such likelihood. With respect to the bad character evidence, the prejudicial effect of the evidence was minimal and the trial judge adequately warned the jury as to its permissible use. The Crown's case was overwhelmingly strong; to the extent that there was any error of law, Code s. 686(1)(b)(iii) should be applied. Dissenting: (Newbury J.A., Rowles J.A. concurring). The errors in the charge lead inevitably to the inference that the jury may not have understood the meaning of reasonable doubt.
• 2000 BCCA 165 R. v. Hammond
  Appeal from conviction for murder dismissed. The trial judge did not err in taking self-defence from the jury, the evidence providing no air of reality for the defence.
• 2000 BCCA 169 R. v. Z.L.
  Criminal law – Sexual assault – Child complainant – Misapprehension of evidence – unreasonable verdict The appellant was convicted of sexual assault of his five-year old son. The offence is alleged to have occurred during a bitter separation between the complainant’s parents during which the complainant witnessed incidents of physical violence by the appellant against the complainant’s mother and younger brother. The complainant was afraid of the appellant and resisted access visits. Held by majority that the conviction should be set aside and an acquittal entered. The trial judge had misapprehended central evidence relating to the timing of the first complaint and the potential from suggestion arising from instruction from "good and bad touching" at the complainant’s school. The trial judge had made a finding that the complainant’s evidence and his unrelated fear of his father was unreliable with respect to complaints of physical assault. Having regard to the misapprehension of the evidence as to the timing of the complaint and the general unreliability of the complainant’s evidence, the evidence taken as a whole could not reasonably support a conviction.  Ryan JA dissented and would dismiss the appeal on the basis that the difficulties with the evidence identified by the appellant were matters for the trial judge to resolve having seen and heard the witnesses. The portions of the complainant's evidence highlighted by the majority must be assessed in light of the age and experience of the child. The conclusions of the trial judge were not unreasonable when the whole of the evidence is examined. The trial judge did not demonstrably misapprehend the evidence."
• 2000 BCCA 174 R. v. Dutra
  Criminal prosecution - Unreasonable delay - Stay of proceedings refused. The appellant was convicted of two counts of criminal harassment. He appealed on the ground that the delay in prosecuting his case was excessive and a stay of proceedings should have been entered. Held, by a majority, that the appeal should be dismissed. Twenty months of the delay in prosecution could be attributable either to Crown tactics or institutional factors but as it was conceded that the delay had not prejudiced the appellant's right to make a full answer and defence, in the absence of other proven prejudice the delay of 20 months was not so excessive as to justify a stay on inferred prejudice alone.  Prowse J.A. (dissenting): There was proof of actual prejudice to the appellant in these circumstances sufficient to justify a stay of proceedings.
• 2000 BCCA 175 R. v. Pham
  Sentence appeal from sentence of 35 months for 9 counts of trafficking in cocaine. Dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 176 R. v. Klapcic
  Conviction appeal on the grounds that the trial judge failed to warn the jury of the use they could make of evidence of "bad character". Appeal dismissed. Failure to warn in these circumstances was not reversible error and, in any event, the case for the Crown was overwhelming.
• 2000 BCCA 177 R. v. Swanson
  The appellant pled guilty to breach of a bail recognizance and was found guilty, following a trial, of breach of probation. He appealed both convictions. The appellant argued that the bail recognizance and probation order were based on an unconstitutional law and violated his s. 7 Charter rights. In addition, the appellant sought to withdraw his guilty plea to the charge of breach of a bail recognizance and to have the trial judge’s verdict of guilty on the breach of probation charge set aside on the basis that it was unsupported by the evidence.  Appeal Dismissed. The appellant’s attempt to set aside his convictions by attacking the bail recognizance and probation order amounted to an impermissible collateral attack. There was no basis on which to set aside the appellant’s guilty plea. The trial judge’s verdict of guilty for breach of probation was supported by the evidence.
• 2000 BCCA 178 R. v. Wittenberg
  Sentence appeal. Leave refused. No failure to observe principles of sentencing.
• 2000 BCCA 181 R. v. Twizell
  Criminal law - sentence appeal - attempted kidnapping - drug addiction. Twizell appeals his sentence of five years for attempted kidnapping. It was alleged that the sentencing judge erred in failing to give appropriate weight to rehabilitation and to the significance of Twizell's heroin addiction. Held: Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge properly instructed himself on the factors of protection of the public, general deterrence and rehabilitation. In the absence of reported cases of attempted kidnapping, it was appropriate to use kidnapping sentences as a reference and to adjust accordingly. The length of sentence imposed was moderate for the offence. There is no authority for the proposition that the fact of drug addiction should operate to reduce a sentence.
• 2000 BCCA 182 R. v. W.W.
  Criminal law - sentence appeal - consecutive sentences. The charges arose from offences occurring at the Willingdon Detention Centre, W.W. was charged (as a young offender) with mischief causing danger to life for setting fire to his mattress and (as an adult) with assault for spraying a staff member with a fire extinguisher. He had an extensive Youth Court Record including numerous breaches of probation. W.W. appeals his global sentence of one year. Held: Appeal dismissed. In light of a pattern of delinquent behaviour in the institution and his record, the six month sentences (to be served consecutively), while at the high end of the range, were appropriate in the circumstances.
• 2000 BCCA 183 R. v. Akan
  Sentence appeal allowed based on new evidence showing reasonable prospect for rehabilitation of an offender with a lengthy record.
• 2000 BCCA 184 R. v. Braich & Braich
  Two brothers were charged on a trial by judge alone with the first degree murder of one victim and with attempted murder and aggravated assault upon three others after an apparent massacre attempt with an automatic weapon upon the victim group from a slow moving van. The two appellants were identified by two witnesses. The trial judge found, as the shots seemed to be directed into the ground, that there was a doubt about the intent of the shooter to cause death so there were convictions for the lesser offences of manslaughter and aggravated assault.  The defence was identification.  Held by McEachern CJBC, Donald J.A. concurring, that there was an error of law requiring a new trial when the trial judge failed in his Reasons for Judgment to demonstrate that the frailties and other difficulties in the Crown’s case had been properly weighed in the assessment of the identification evidence.  Southin J.A. dissenting, would dismiss the appeal having decided the judge’s decision was reasonable and was supported by the evidence.
• 2000 BCCA 186    R. v. D.C.
  Criminal law - sentence appeal - young offender - credit for pre-trial custody. D.C. appeals his custodial sentence of two years for manslaughter on the basis that the Youth Court judge failed to give full credit for 19 months served in pre-trial custody thereby effectively imposing a sentence exceeding the three year maximum penalty prescribed under the Young Offenders Act. Held: Appeal dismissed. The decision whether to give credit for time served in custody is discretionary. The judge exercised his discretion judicially. There is no support for the proposition that credit for time served in custody must be given when the failure to do so would cause the effective sentence to exceed the maximum.
• 2000 BCCA 187 R. v. Garcha
  On appeal from conviction by judge alone on multiple counts of robbery and related offences, it was held that the trial judge did not apply a reverse onus of proof to the alibi defence raised by the defence on the first 8 counts, and did not err in admitting evidence relating to these counts as similar fact evidence going to identity on a second group of counts. The verdicts on all counts were not unreasonable, and the appeal was dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 190 R. v. N.S.
  Sexual Assault: Burden of proof of identity of assailant. Assessment of credibility of child witness.
• 2000 BCCA 192 R. v. Lazeo
  The appellant was convicted on six counts of violating s.6 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, S.C. 1991, c.26 and four charges of attempts to launder the proceeds of crime contrary to s.19.2 of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. (1985), c. N-1. An accused is guilty of an attempt if he intends to commit a crime and takes legally sufficient steps towards its commission. Because an attempt is in its very nature an incomplete substantive offence, it will always be the case that the actus reus of the completed offence will be deficient, and sometimes this will be because an attendant circumstance is lacking. Under s.581 of the Code it is permissible to frame a charge in the words of the enactment which is what was done here.
• 2000 BCCA 195 Doucet v. Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services and AGBC
  This appeal requires an interpretation of s.672.47 of the Criminal Code which deals with the disposition and review of a person who is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The appeal is decided on the basis that an order extending time for a review hearing can not be made subject to collateral attack if it is valid on its face. The majority also decided that if a Review Board fails to meet the time limits set by s.672.47, it does not lose jurisdiction. On that question, Mr. Justice Lambert dissented.
• 2000 BCCA 199 R. v. O'Brien
  A sentence of 9 months imprisonment to be followed by 18 months probation for the assault causing bodily harm of an 11 month child cannot be said to be "unfit" in spite of the non-criminal background of the 22 year old offender. The order of payment of a sum of money to the child's mother as part of the probation order was not to be measured by the standards of s. 738(1)(a) of the Code.
• 2000 BCCA 200 R. v. Ward
• 2000 BCCA 201 R. v. Hurst
  On appeal from dismissal by the Supreme Court of a summary conviction and sentence appeal, it was held that the conviction was supported by properly admissible evidence, but the sentence appeal was allowed to the extent of relieving against the $15 victim surcharge levy imposed, because the in-person appellant raised difficult questions as to its legality and constitutionality which should not be decided against him without proper legal representation.
• 2000 BCCA 202 R. v. D.M.
• 2000 BCCA 204 R. v. Johnson
  The police may briefly detain a person if they have "articulable cause" that the person may be, or have been engaged in criminal activity. The police may conduct a search for weapons as an incident to the stop if they have "articulable cause" that the person is armed and dangerous. They are not entitled to search for contraband unless they have reasonable and probable grounds. Here, there were no reasonable and probable grounds to search the appellant or to arrest him. The evidence obtained from the search was excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter. The appellant's conviction for possession of stolen property was set aside and an acquittal entered.
• 2000 BCCA 209 R. v. Kerr
  The accused was convicted by a jury of second degree murder. He appealed on four grounds all related to the admissibility of evidence. First, a statement the accused made in answer to a request to take a breathalyzer test; second, evidence that the deceased was not a pedophile as alleged by the accused; third, evidence of the record of the accused which formed a part of the basis of a psychiatrist’s opinion about the mental state of the accused; and fourth, a ruling that defence counsel could not ask the psychiatrist in re-examination about the credibility of the accused. The judgment of the court is that the trial judge did not err in any of these matters and the appeal was dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 210 R. v. Peters
  Chambers application for an order that Mr. Peter’s conviction appeal be heard prior to the determination of his dangerous offender status. Held: Motion dismissed. There was no prospect that the appeal could be decided before the date set for the dangerous offender hearing. The request could not be accommodated without interfering with the processes of the Provincial Court. Considerations of administrative convenience favoured the Crown in this instance. The issue of whether a justice has jurisdiction to stay a sentence proceeding while a conviction appeal is pending was not fully argued.
• 2000 BCCA 214 R. v. Larson
  This judgment corrects an oversight. This court substituted a conviction for a lesser included driving offence for a more serious offence but omitted to reduce the period of a driving suspension to the new minimum prescribed for the substituted offence.
• 2000 BCCA 216    R. v. Pearson
  The appellant appealed his convictions for the cultivation of marihuana and possession for the purposes of trafficking. Held, the reasons of the trial judge show he was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence adduced that the accused had both the requisite knowledge of and control over the marihuana. The proper test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was applied and there was no misapprehension of the evidence. The appeal was dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 220 R. v. Scott
  The respondent was convicted of two counts of robbery, but acquitted of using an "imitation firearm" during the commission of the robberies (s. 85(2) of the Criminal Code). The Court (C.J.B.C., Prowse and Braidwood JJ.A.) dismissed Scott’s appeal of his conviction on one of the robbery counts. The store owner’s identification of Scott in a police photo lineup as well as in court, coupled with collateral evidence, supports the verdict. The majority of the Court (C.J.B.C. and Braidwood J.A.) allowed the appeal of the Crown and convicted Scott of two counts of using an "imitation firearm." The trial judge erred in his interpretation of s. 85(2) by finding that the Crown is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm is not capable of being discharged (i.e. not a real firearm). Such an interpretation would defeat the legislative purpose of the section, as it would make prosecutions under s. 85(2) impossible when the firearm is not recovered. Although the term "imitation firearm" may be unambiguous, it must be ascribed an unordinary meaning to be in harmony with the legislative intent. Therefore, it must include a real firearm. Furthermore, absurdities would result in firearms cases if the interpretation of the trial judge is adopted. Prowse J.A., dissenting on this point, agreed with the trial judge’s interpretation of the provision. Section 85(1) and (2) create separate offences. Under s. 85(2), it is essential for the Crown to establish that the weapon used in the commission of the offence is an "imitation firearm." It is not sufficient to prove that the weapon was either a "firearm" or an "imitation firearm" or that it resembles a firearm. Nor does the definition of "imitation firearm" include a real firearm. The Court should not attribute a meaning to the words "imitation firearm" which they cannot reasonably bear.
• 2000 BCCA 221 R. v. Fry
  The appellant applied for an extension of time to appeal the conviction for unlawfully producing marihuana on the basis of irregularities in the re-election procedures - s. 561 of the Code. The application was dismissed on the basis the appeal lacked merit, as the procedural requirements had been waived by the appellant. On the sentence appeal, held the imposition of a fine was not an inappropriate penalty and the amount of the fine is not outside the appropriate range.
• 2000 BCCA 224 R. v. Magone
• 2000 BCCA 225 R. v. Liu
• 2000 BCCA 227 R. v. Schmidt
• 2000 BCCA 230 R v. Harley
  The appellant in this sentence appeal is capable of conducting his own appeal and the appointment of counsel is refused.
• 2000 BCCA 239 R. v. Bohn
  The police officers involved in a search of the appellant’s home, for reasons of expediency, chose not to take the search warrant with them when they entered the appellant’s home. They were therefore unable to produce it upon request. This was a breach of s. 29(1) of the Criminal Code. The officers arresting the appellant advised him that he could not use the telephone to call a lawyer until he reached the police station. The trial judge found this to be a breach of the appellant’s rights under s. 10(b) of the Charter. The effect of the failure to produce the warrant made the search of the house unlawful and unreasonable under s. 8 of the Charter. The combined breaches should have resulted in the exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and an acquittal entered.
• 2000 BCCA 245 R. v. Hart
  Sexual assault – Sexual touching pursuant to ss. 153 and 271 of the Criminal Code. Decision reversed on both counts and acquittals entered, applying s. 686.
• 2000 BCCA 247 R. v. Lam
  Sentences totally 2 1/2 years on possession of stolen property and firearm offences upheld as entirely fit sentences in the circumstances.
• 2000 BCCA 248 R. v. Reeve
  Convictions for sexual offences were set aside and acquittals directed with the consent of the Crown.
• 2000 BCCA 251 R. v. Silbernagel
  Application for review of dismissal of application for leave to appeal dismissed. No substantive question raised by applicant.
• 2000 BCCA 257 R. v. Novak
  The appellant was convicted of the cultivation of marihuana. He challenged the validity of two search warrants obtained by police as constituting unreasonable search and seizure. Held: The appeal is dismissed. The appellant did not have a constitutionally recognized privacy right to either the B.C. Hydro records or with respect to the commercial unit that housed the grow operation. Such a privacy right is a necessary prerequisite to a Section 8 argument. The appellant has therefore no standing to challenge the search warrants.
• 2000 BCCA 258 R. v. Jabarianha
• 2000 BCCA 259 R. v. Zahorejko
• 2000 BCCA 266 R. v. Budai
• 2000 BCCA 264 R. v. R.B.
  Compensation order made in the total sum of about $2,200 against a Young Offender who was 16 years of age with no established earning ability. The compensation was to be paid over about a year’s time. The Youth Court judge gave leave to the youth to return to Youth Court if he was unable to pay. Appeal dismissed on ground that the power of the Youth Court to review the matter made the sentence fit in all the circumstances.
• 2000 BCCA 265 R. v. Mundy
  Sentence Appeal - House arrest term varied to permit appellant to continue employment.
• 2000 BCCA 271 R. v. Sebelley
  Appeal against sentence dismissed. The sentence of 4.5 years for escaping lawful custody, possessing stolen property, dangerous driving, and obstructing a police officer is fit in all the circumstances. The probation order is rescinded since the sentence exceeds 2 years.
• 2000 BCCA 278 R. v. Plewes
  APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION ON TWO COUNTS OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER. ALLOWED: A new trial ordered. The accused admitted the killings but sought a reduced verdict mainly on the ground that, because of mental disorder short of insanity, he did not have the necessary intent. A direction to decide whether the accused was in a "diminished mental state" and to "not consider any defence based on automatism" may have led the jury to not consider expert evidence called by the defence in deciding the issue of intent. Further, the written charge delivered to the jury at the opening of trial, by including the direction that "the things that you choose not to accept must not be taken into account when arriving at your verdict", may also have resulted in the jury giving no consideration to the expert evidence. Although the curative provision will be available in some cases in relation to the Miller error, it is not in the particular circumstances of this case.
• 2000 BCCA 281 R. v. Sowassey
  The court upheld a trial judge's ruling under s. 16 of the Canada Evidence Act permitting a 10 year old complainant to give evidence on a promise to tell the truth.
• 2000 BCCA 282 R. v. Steele
  Breach of term of conditional sentence - Court of Appeal declining to interfere with refusal of sentencing judge to change sentence to custody because of minor nature of breach.
• 2000 BCCA 287 R. v. Aiwekhoe
  This is an application under s.684 of the Criminal Code, asking the court to assign counsel to act on an accused's behalf in a conviction and sentence appeal. Applying the cirteria in Re Baig and the Queen (1990), 58 C.C.C. (3d) 156 (B.C.C.A.), the application was refused.
• 2000 BCCA 289 Martin v. Director, Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services
• 2000 BCCA 292 R. v. Bensley
  Leave to appeal refusal to award costs not granted. No error found in disposition made by Summary Conviction Appeal judge concerning costs issue.
• 2000 BCCA 304 R. v. Hughes
  An application for leave to appeal an order allowing an appeal from a presiding Justice of the Provincial Court was dismissed. In issue was the validity of a ticket issued by the City of Nanaimo.
• 2000 BCCA 307 R. v. Peters
  Prowse J.A. - Appeal Allowed (Braidwood J.A. dissenting). The accused was convicted of manslaughter for a killing which occurred in 1978. Following trial, the accused was sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment. In addition, he had served 16 months of pretrial custody. It was not disputed that the accused’s sentence was equivalent to 11 years and 8 months. The trial judge erred in imposing a sentence at the highest end of the range for the offence of manslaughter. The only description of the offence provided by the trial judge did not support the imposition of such a sentence. A sentence of six years’ imprisonment should be substituted for the nine years’ imposed by the trial judge (taking into account the time spent in pretrial custody). Braidwood J.A. (dissenting): Although the sentence is high, it is fit in all the circumstances. It was fashioned, on one hand, to protect the public and, on the other, to rehabilitate the offender. It was not demonstrated that the trial judge erred in his characterization of the events in this case as a "near murder" for the purpose of imposing a sentence. The sentence imposed by the trial judge therefore fell within the acceptable range for similar offences and should not be disturbed by this Court.
• 2000 BCCA 308 R. v. Bonamy
  Appeal from conviction by a jury, on three counts of fraud and two counts of knowingly making for sale or hire infringing copies of copyrighted computer software programs, dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 309 R. v. Riel
  Appeal of conviction for second degree murder on the basis that the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge erred in admitting recordings of intercepted conversations between the appellant and an undercover officer in Las Vegas, thereby violating his right to a fair trial. Held: Appeal dismissed. The verdict was not unreasonable. There is no basis for alleging unfairness in admitting evidence lawfully taken in Nevada. As the Charter has no extra-territorial effect, exclusion of this evidence would not have any effect on the degree of state intrusion in Nevada and thus the rationale for requiring authorization is effectively nullified.
• 2000 BCCA 314 R. v. Hysop
  The accused was convicted of second degree murder of one child and attempted murder of her other child by pouring ignited solvent on them. The issues argued were whether the accused was detained when she made a statement to the police "I set the fire", and whether those words were admissible as an incomplete statement. Appeal dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 322 R. v. Veale
  Appeal allowed where trial judge considered "public policy" as a factor precluding a self-defence argument in "ABH charge".
• 2000 BCCA 323 R. v. Basaraba
  Sentence appeal against 9 months for trafficking and 3 months (consecutive) for breach of conditions, dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 324 R. v. Plotnikoff
  Court of Appeal dismissing appeal from conviction for sexual assault where case largely depending on credibility findings and Reasons of trial judge disclosed no error.
• 2000 BCCA 329 R. v. Miller
  Prowse J.A. (for the Court): A panel of this Court has the power to review the order of a single justice refusing to grant an extension of time to appeal in a criminal matter only where this is evidence of new circumstances arising since the original application or where it is in the interests of justice to do so (R. v. O’Malley (1997), 119 C.C.C. (3d) 360 (B.C.C.A.)). No such circumstances existed in this case. Mr. Miller’s appeal from conviction for "attempting to choke, strangle or suffocate another person in order to render that person insensible, unconscious or incapable of resistance" must be set aside on the basis that it does not disclose an offence known to law and it is not in accord with the agreed statement of facts. The evidence with respect to this count should not have been admitted at the dangerous offender proceeding. A new trial should be ordered with respect to the included offences relating to this count. (Prowse J.A., dissenting on this point, would have quashed Mr. Miller’s conviction and entered an acquittal).   The evidence with respect to a 1985 assault conviction should not have been admitted at the dangerous offender proceeding since Mr. Miller pleaded guilty to the included offence of common assault pursuant to s. 606(4) of the Criminal Code and was found not guilty of the greater offence of sexual assault pursuant to that section. Because of the errors made by the sentencing judge in admitting inadmissible evidence, Mr. Miller’s appeal from the finding that he is a dangerous offender is allowed. A new hearing is directed pursuant to s. 759(3)(a)(iii) of the Code.
• 2000 BCCA 333 R. v. Harley
  Appeal of a seven-year sentence for sexual assault (sexual touching), sentence on the high side, and many aggravating factors, justify the sentence imposed.
• 2000 BCCA 335 R. v. Malmo-Levine et al.
  The appellants were both convicted of possession of marihuana contrary to the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1. In addition, the appellant Malmo-Levine was convicted of possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking. Both appellants allege that the prohibition on marihuana possession in the NCA infringes section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Braidwood J.A. (Rowles J.A. concurring): The appeals are dismissed. The prohibition on marihuana possession does not deprive the appellants’ rights to life, liberty or security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. There are three basic stages to the s. 7 analysis. The first stage concerns whether there has been a deprivation of an individual’s right to life, liberty or security of the person. Braidwood J.A. found that the liberty interest of the appellants is automatically engaged due to the threat of imprisonment upon conviction. The second stage of the s. 7 analysis requires the Court to identify and define the operative "principle of fundamental justice." Braidwood J.A. agreed with the appellants that the operative principle of fundamental justice in this case is the "harm principle." The harm principle stipulates that the State cannot imprison individuals for activities that only harm themselves, and do not harm (or have the potential of harming) others. Braidwood J.A. concluded that the harm principle requires Parliament to have a reasonable apprehension of harm that is "neither trivial nor insignificant" in order to attach criminal sanctions to an activity. The third stage of the s. 7 analysis concerns whether the deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person is in accordance with the operative principle of fundamental justice. Braidwood J.A. found that the findings of fact in Caine demonstrate that marihuana consumption poses the requisite degree of harm to others and society. Therefore, the prohibition against marihuana possession in the NCA is in accordance with the "harm principle." Braidwood J.A. also considered whether the impugned provisions of the NCA "strike the right balance" between the rights of individual Canadians and the interests of the State. The results of this "balancing test" is quite close and, accordingly, the matter is best left to Parliament. Prowse J.A. (dissenting) – Prowse J.A. concurred with Braidwood J.A. that the appellants’ liberty interest was engaged and agreed that the relevant principle of fundamental justice at issue in this case was the "harm principle". Prowse J.A. concluded, however, that the harm principle requires Parliament to have a reasonable apprehension of "serious or substantial" harm in order to attach criminal law sanctions to an activity. Prowse J.A. accepted the findings of the trial judge in Caine as to the harm caused by marihuana use and concluded that this level of harm does not meet the standard of serious or substantial harm. She concluded, therefore, that the criminal prohibition against marihuana possession infringes the appellants’ liberty in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Prowse J.A. would have directed further argument as to whether the prohibition could be saved by s. 1 of the Charter.
• 2000 BCCA 337 R. v. B.B.
  Conviction appeal allowed based on Crown’s failure to disclose statements given by witnesses prior to trial.
• 2000 BCCA 340 R. v. Janik
  Rule 13(3) reference. Appeal dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 341 Martin v. Director, Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services
  Issue on appeal is whether the British Columbia Review Board lost jurisdiction over Mr. Martin when it failed to conduct a valid review within twelve months of its decision granting a conditional discharge as provided by s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Held: Appeal dismissed. For the reasons given in Doucet, non-compliance with a mandatory time limit, without a demonstration of substantial prejudice, does not result in a loss of jurisdiction over the appellant.
• 2000 BCCA 343 R. v. Vaquerano
  Concurrent sentences of 2 & 3 years for trafficking in cocaine were upheld. Offender was a lst time offender on bail at time of second offence. He had sought to sell drugs both times in a small northern town and sentencing judge had emphasized community protection. Sentences fell within range and were entitled to deference on application of R. v. M.(C.A.).
• 2000 BCCA 345 R. v. Bremner
  Historic indecent assault – Conditional sentence imposed – analysis of use of Victim Impact Statements and what they should contain. Criminal Code s. 722 – dealt with in detail – including predecessor s. 785.
• 2000 BCCA 346 R. v. A.D.
  The trial judge misapprehended evidence bearing on the credibility of the accused. The court ordered a new trial.
• 2000 BCCA 347 R. v. Fliss
  Majority of Court finding that verdict of second degree murder should be substituted for verdict of first degree murder found by jury. Court considering issues relating to statement of appellant to undercover officer and physical evidence testified to by expert in accident reconstruction.  Southin J.A. dissenting.
• 2000 BCCA 349 R. v. Saba
  Admissibility of taped statement of accused - voluntariness - appeal dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 353    R. v. Donnelly
  A sentence of two years less one day to a historical indecent assault which took place over seven years, perpetrated by the appellant on his adolescent step-daughter, was held by the court to be fit.
• 2000 BCCA 359 R. v. Chong
  No error in a sentence of 14 years imposed on a twenty year old man for a kidnapping in which over many days the victim was grievously mistreated.
• 2000 BCCA 361 R. v. Braich; R. v. Braich
  Supplementary reasons to dissenting reasons by Southin J.A. made necessary by s. 677 of the Criminal Code.
• 2000 BCCA 362 R. v. Kennedy
  The appellant maintained a marijuana grow-operation in the basement of his Kelowna home. One morning, a police officer chased a suspect through neighbouring backyards but lost sight of the suspect. The back door to the appellant’s house was ajar, and the police officer wanted to search the house to see whether the suspect ran inside. The appellant said it was "okay." Once inside the house, the officer smelled growing marijuana. A search warrant was obtained, and the police discovered the grow operation. Pursuant to a now-abandoned policy, the officers then destroyed the equipment rather than storing it. The trial judge, in a voir dire, was willing to assume that the appellant’s s. 8 rights were violated, but held that the evidence should not be excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter. Held (Donald, Newbury, and Braidwood JJ.A.): The appeal is dismissed. The first issue is whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellant "consented" to the police officer entering his house. The evidence demonstrates that the appellant’s consent was voluntary and that he knew the consequences of allowing the police officer to enter his house. The appellant believed that the officer would not find anything. The second issue on appeal concerned whether the evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to the manner of the search (i.e. the destruction of the grow-op equipment). The Court held that the evidence should not be excluded based on the 3 factors set out in R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265. The evidence is non-conscriptive and existed irrespective of any Charter violation. The seriousness of the violation was not great. Finally, the exclusion of the evidence would bring the system of justice into disrepute. The appellant’s remedy in regards to the destruction of the equipment would be a civil remedy, and not pursuant to the Charter.
• 2000 BCCA 363 R. v. Hunter
  Court finding that keeping for sale of hemp seeds capable of germination constituting offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking of marijuana.
• 2000 BCCA 368 R. v. Villarica
  The appellant was convicted of two counts of assault with a weapon and two counts of aggravated assault. The Court allowed his appeal and ordered a new trial on the basis that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence. The trial judge referred to an individual as being a witness who was not in fact a witness at trial, but rather, was a witness at the preliminary hearing.
• 2000 BCCA 374 R. v. Norris
  The respondent, an aboriginal woman, aged 27, drug addict, pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and charges stemming from a failure to appear and a breach of a bail condition. On the drug charges she was sentenced to two concurrent four month custodial terms and one year probation. On the remaining charges the provincial court judge imposed a sentence of time served in pre-sentence custody. Crown appealed the sentence. Held: Appeal dismissed, in part. Sentence for the failure to appear and breach of a bail condition substituted by one day in jail. Sentence imposed with respect to the drug offences, while lenient, was appropriate in the circumstances. Pursuant to s.718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, the respondent, an aboriginal offender, is entitled to special consideration with particular emphasis on a restorative approach. The respondent's health concerns and desire to reunite with her child were relevant considerations to take into account in assessing the potential for rehabilitation. The deterrent effect of severe sentences on a heavily addicted individual is doubtful.
• 2000 BCCA 379 R. v. Jones
  Sentence appeal – Global 15 years imprisonmentz "Home invasion" and sexual assault of occupant. Weapon used.
• 2000 BCCA 387 R. v. J.G.
  The appellants, two aboriginal 14-year-old girls appealed a sentence of six months’ open custody to be followed by a period of probation imposed by a youth court judge to the offence of assault with a weapon. The two appellants, along with others, planned and executed an attack on a fellow student after school where they beat the victim and tried to set fire to her hair. The majority of the court dismissed the appeal holding that matters which arose after sentencing were appropriately dealt with by the youth court judge pursuant to s. 28 of the Young Offenders Act. Prowse J.A. dissented. She would have reduced the sentence to time served and increased the terms of probation.
• 2000 BCCA 388 R. v. Bos
  It is not necessarily a breach of a suspect's 10(b) rights as defined in R. v. Bartle, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173 for the officer to fail to mention the availability of a "toll free number", provided that the words used are sufficient to convey the message.
• 2000 BCCA 393 R. v. Jahnke
  
• 2000 BCCA 399 R. v. Stewart
The appellant was charged with 3 counts of sexual assault in 1995. It took 47.5 months before his case went to trial. The appellant applied for a stay of proceedings based on a violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter. The trial judge dismissed the application. The majority (Prowse and Braidwood JJ.A) dismissed the appeal. Braidwood J.A.: The delay in this case was extremely long, but the passage of time is not the only factor to consider in a s. 11(b) analysis. A total of 21.5 months were waived by the appellant. Of the remaining 26 months, 13.5 months are attributable to inherent delay, 9 months to institutional delay, and 3.5 months due to the pregnancy of one of the complainants. The delay in each circumstance, and overall, was not unreasonable. Furthermore, the appellant has not demonstrated that he suffered anything more than minimal prejudice due to the delay. The Court should also consider the non-action of the appellant, in that he did not protest the delays in the case and, after 3 years had passed, explicitly stated that he would not raise any Charter arguments.   Prowse J.A. : Of the total period of delay of approximately 48 months, only 8 months was waived by the appellant. The degree of prejudice suffered by the accused is a significant factor in the s. 11(b) analysis. Although a degree of prejudice can be inferred from the length of the delay, an accused can only succeed in having charges stayed if he or she can establish something more than the minimal prejudice found by the trial judge. Mr. Stewart did not present evidence establishing such prejudice.  Newbury J.A. (Dissenting):  Where the delay was as long as this, prejudice could be inferred and in any event was outweighed by the length of delay not caused by the appellant.  On a consideration of the factors referred to in Morin, this amounted to a breach of his Charter rights
• 2000 BCCA 403 R. v. Fontaine
  Chambers application to dismiss appeal.
• 2000 BCCA 410 R. v. Toor
  Sentence on count of robbery reduced from four to three years based on age of offender and prospects for rehabilitation.
• 2000 BCCA 411 R. v. Persall
  Application of appellant for appointment of counsel refused because no possibility of success on appeal demonstrated.
• 2000 BCCA 414 R. v. Ekman
  Statement by accused to police officer, after accused had obtained legal advice from counsel, held admissible; retrial ordered.
• 2000 BCCA 417 R. v. Perez
• 2000 BCCA 418 R. v. Mak
  The court concluded that the verdict in this case was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.
• 2000 BCCA 420 R. v. Collinge
• 2000 BCCA 425 R. v. Holding
  Sentencing appeal – Conditional sentence granted
• 2000 BCCA 427 R. v. Huovinen
  The court discussed the scope of the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations. The Court ruled that R. v. Cummins (January 26, 1998), Surrey Registry No. 93472-01 [unreported] was wrongly reasoned insofar as it decided that the ACFLR did not authorize the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to include the right to sell fish in a communal licence.
• 2000 BCCA 428 R. v. Hammond
  The appellant appealed a parole ineligibility period of 20 years imposed by a Supreme Court judge after the appellant's conviction for second degree murder. The appellant's criminal background, his psychological make-up, as well as the circumstances of the offence, justified the imposition of this period of ineligibility. The appeal was dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 429 R. v. Innes
  The court held that the refusal of the trial judge to accept the joint submission of the Crown and defence on sentence was not an error of law. The sentence was not otherwise unfit. Leave was granted, the appeal dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 431 R. v. Nguyen
  An application for judicial interim release pending appeal was refused, the applicant having failed to show that his detention was not necessary in the public interest. In all the circumstances release would involve an unacceptable level of risk to the public, and would tend to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
• 2000 BCCA 433 R. v. Small
  Section 752.1(2) of the Criminal Code, which pertains to dangerous offender proceedings is satisfied if "the person to whom the offender is remanded" delivers a copy of an assessment report to the court registry. The trial judge erred in law in finding dangerous offender proceedings "a nullity" where the author of the report delivered it to the registry, but the registry failed to stamp the report or maintain a copy of it.
• 2000 BCCA 437 R. v. Sims
  Appeal allowed from the order of a summary conviction appeal judge setting aside the convictions on charges of displaying misleading safety marks on fire extinguishers contrary to s. 33 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992. The issue was whether under s. 11(2) of the Statutory Instruments Act an external standard incorporated by reference into a regulation made under the authority of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 must be published in the Canada Gazette before a prosecution may be brought under the Act based on contravention of that external standard. Incorporation by reference allows the incorporated document to become an integral part of the incorporating document without actually reproducing the text. S. 11(2) did not apply. The CSA Standard CAN/CSA B339-88 incorporated by reference in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations was not itself a "statutory instrument" and therefore was not a "regulation" within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act.
• 2000 BCCA 438 R. v. Lussier
  Section 684 application dismissed because lacking in merit.
• 2000 BCCA 439 R. v. Paton
  Six year sentence on charge of robbery was upheld.
• 2000 BCCA 440 R. v. Kozma
  Conditional Sentence granted on appeal to 36 year old convicted of four counts of trafficking in cocaine; Proulx applied.
• 2000 BCCA 441 R. v. Belcourt
  Appeal from second degree murder conviction. Appeal dismissed. Court finding no air of reality in NCRMD defence and finding that judge not obliged to instruct jury on this issue. No error found in judge’s charge relative to issues of intent concerning murder and manslaughter.
• 2000 BCCA 443 R. v. J.W.R.
  Chambers application for return of passport. Application dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 444 R. v. Bennett
• 2000 BCCA 445 R. v. Sandover-Sly
• 2000 BCCA 449 R. v. C.T.W.
  The appellant's sentence was reduced on the basis of the principles set out in R. v. La Rouche (1983) 6 CCC 268 (Que. C.A.) The appellant had co-operated with the police and had testified against the ring-leader of a group of "home invaders".
• 2000 BCCA 450 R. v. Coleman
  Sentence of 18 months imprisonment and three years probation upheld for appellant found guilty of three sexual assaults on children. PSR strongly indicated need for controlled therapy and likelihood of recidivism.
• 2000 BCCA 451 R. v. Dobbie
  Application for judicial review under s. 679(3)
• 2000 BCCA 452 R. v. Ivan
  Sentence of one day and two years probation for assault causing bodily harm - at time of sentencing appellant in prison on remand on subsequent indictment for which he was convicted and sentenced to two years and eight months - expiry date of warrant of committal for subsequent sentence approximately three years and two months from date of sentence of one day and two years probation - Criminal Code, s. 732.2 - Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. Chap. C-44.6, s. 139(1) - R. v. Miller (1987), 36 C.C.C. (3d) 100 (Ont.C.A.) distinguished - probation order legal.
• 2000 BCCA 454 R. v. Shandruk
  Section 684 application refused because of poor prospects of success on appeal and probability of improvement in financial status of applicant.
• 2000 BCCA 461 Netherlands (Kingdom of) v. Clarkson
  The provisions of the extradition treaty between Canada and the Netherlands which provide for the admission of unsworn or unaffirmed testimony on an extradition hearing were challenged by the appellant on the ground that they violated his rights under s. 7 of the Charter. The court dismissed the appellant’s appeal of his order for committal for extradition on the basis that he bore the proof of establishing but had not demonstrated that his Charter rights were violated.
• 2000 BCCA 464 R. v. F.A.S. Seafood Producers Ltd.
  Application for leave to appeal dismissal of summary conviction appeal - conviction under s. 78 of the Fisheries Act. Application dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 470 R. v. Dick
  Sentence Appeal: The appellant, Monty Dick, was sentenced to 6 months on a summary conviction offence and 18 months concurrent on each of four indictable theft and motor vehicle related offences. After serving approximately 5 months of this sentence he was subsequently charged with theft of a motor vehicle under $5,000 and was sentenced to two years less a day and four months probation. This sentence increased his total period of incarceration to approximately 29 months. The appellant appealed his sentence. Braidwood J.A.: Appeal dismissed. The sentence was fit. Braidwood J.A. rejected the appellant’s arguments that it was not made apparent to the sentencing judge that the conduct of the appellant, with respect to this offence, was closely related to the other offences for which he was already in jail; that this offence formed part of the "spree" along with the other offences; and that the sentence was disproportionate or inappropriate given the psychiatric evidence presented. In all of the circumstances, and considering the appellant’s criminal record, the totality of the sentence was fit.
• 2000 BCCA 471 R. v. Hetu
  Leave to appeal sentence refused. No error in principle shown.
• 2000 BCCA 472 R. v. D.E.R.
  Appellant was convicted of historic sexual assaults on young persons. Court altering sentence from consecutive terms totalling two years less a day to a one year sentence because of positive circumstances of offender concerning rehabilitation.
• 2000 BCCA 473 R. v. Honigman
  Summary conviction appeal judge did not err in his analysis of whether the appellant had received a fair trial. Leave to appeal from the order of the summary conviction appeal judge was accordingly dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 475 R. v. Henry
  Application for abandonment of appeal of the order for prohibition with certiorari in aid. Application dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 476 R. v. MacDonald
  Application for leave to appeal from a sentence of 3 1/2 years of imprisonment. Leave to appeal granted - appeal dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 477 R. v. K.J.
  Young Offenders Act - Court sustaining judgment transferring young offender aged nearly 16 at time of homicide offence because of serious nature and circumstances of offence and potential for treatment in adult system.
• 2000 BCCA 478 R. v. Kranc
  Application for leave to appeal against sentence. Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed to the extent of reducing the driving prohibition under s. 259(2) of the Criminal Code to 3 years and 4 months.
• 2000 BCCA 479 R. v. Kozak
  Application for leave to appeal against sentence. Leave to appeal granted - appeal dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 480 R. v. Su
  The range of sentence for a conviction for conducting a grow operation of marijuana for a first offender not believed to have been involved with organized crime is discussed. A sentence of two years less a day was reduced to 12 months.
• 2000 BCCA 481 R. v. Poole
  Sections 752 and 753(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code are considered in the versions enacted in 1997. "Reasonableness" is the standard of review in dangerous offender proceedings. Section 752.1 does not infringe the Charter. An appeal from the imposition of an indeterminate sentence following a dangerous offender finding was dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 483 R. v. Lazeo
  The appellant was charged with theft of money and fraud. The appellant who operated a business known as "Tangible Arts" in Victoria purchased platinum bars from the complainant. The appellant agreed to pay the complainant a certain sum in 3 months’ time. The appellant sold the bars over the next few months but was unable to achieve a price which equalled the amount of his debt. The appellant used some of the money received to pay business debts and some to purchase grain and gold futures in the hope he would earn enough money to repay his debt. He failed to do so. In the meantime he put off his creditor with a series of lies. The appellant’s conviction for theft and fraud were set aside by the Court of Appeal. As to the theft count, the appellant did not deprive the complainant of a "special property or interest" in property. The complainant had no special property interest in the money the appellant obtained for the sale of the bars. The two had a simple creditor/debtor relationship. As to the fraud, Newbury J.A. dissenting, it could not be said that the Crown had established that the appellant recklessly used the funds of his business in an unauthorized manner or by "dishonest means" put his ability to pay his creditor out of reach. Newbury J.A. would have dismissed the appeal from the fraud conviction on the basis that the appellant had not demonstrated that the verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence.
• 2000 BCCA 495 R. v. DaSilva
  Appellant convicted of break and enter with intent and aggravated assault. Court finding no error in Attorney General requiring trial of one count by judge and jury to supersede election of accused on one count for judge alone when accused had elected to be tried on other counts by judge and jury. Court finding no error in refusal of judge to leave insane automatism with jury. Appeal dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 500 Interfor v. Simm
  Appeal against sentences imposed for contempt of court. In the course of a trial of 12 persons charged with criminal contempt arising out of alleged breaches of court orders enjoining interference with the plaintiffs’ logging operations, 4 of the 12 offered to plead guilty to civil contempt. Crown counsel having recommended acceptance of those pleas, the trial judge made an order accordingly. The sentences imposed were 14 days imprisonment for the contemnor involved in the earliest incident and 28, 42 and 56 days upon the other three based on the time sequence of the incidents in which they were involved. The 2 appellants were sentenced to 28 days and 56 days. The matters taken into consideration in arriving at those sentences would have been appropriate had there been a finding of criminal contempt, the elements of which are wilful disobedience of an order in a manner which undermined the authority of the court in a public way. The finding of civil contempt imports only the element of wilful disobedience. In view of that error in principle, the appeal is allowed and the sentences set aside. In their place the first appellant is sentenced to one day in jail and a period of probation. The second, whose conduct was calculated to interfere with the plaintiff's operations in a serious and inflammatory way, is sentenced to 10 days in prison and a term of probation. Observations as to the inappropriateness of judges, hearing matters of this kind, expressing the view that the Attorney General failed in his duty by pursuing, in cases of so-called "civil disobedience", a policy of proceeding by way of citations for criminal contempt rather than launching prosecutions under the Criminal Code. Such criticisms of the A.G. failed to give effect to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in MacMillan Bloedel v. Simpson, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 1048.
• 2000 BCCA 501 International Forest Products Ltd. v. Kern et al.
  An intervenor applied for leave to appeal an order defining the role it could play in the proceedings. Held: The application was dismissed. The intervenor had not made out an arguable case on the merits.
• 2000 BCCA 502 R. v. Lussier
  Rule 13(3) reference. Appeal dismissed as abandoned.
• 2000 BCCA 503 R. v. F.E.F.
• 2000 BCCA 488 R. v. McHardy
  Chambers application for leave to appeal. Appeal dismissed.
• 2000 BCCA 494 R. v. Toma; R. v. Dhanowa
  Without the owners’ permission, trees were limbed and felled on residential propert