CDURT BF UNTARID 

[Superior Court eflustiee]

{CentrelEast Region} i 
3 r- 

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent

end-

.  RG-
Ap pellent

 

NOTICE eF APPEAL

 

TAKE NOTICE that Dean Del Mastre. {the 33mg; themm??m?ggf .1 I
made by Her Heineur Judge L. _l   
?19H's? '3 ?a I Arr?. I
-J?ho I 1.3' xii": Rial}  A nit 3:171     Iii?I15! i Evil; ?ti??L-grr-?J?L.  I(rh- I'l In I I. I It." 
l-~rI~ - 
f' {lit "1551'1 lift}: 1 ?r'we)- 

 
    
 



ALIIka't


.- w:
3 
i?r?-ra. 

'nm . . .
. {12.3. 
?gall-3441:; Li,

to obtain and/or preserve ley evidence, such as Frank Hall's long-distance phone

records.2 
13 After the conviction, the Appellant changed lawyers and Mr, Adler was retained.

Counsel's review of the Judgment caused him to file an Application for mistrial based
primarily on Her Honour's failure to determine how much actual work was done and
what its true value was -- especially in light of Hall's "accepted" evidence in chief. The
trial judge erred in failingto grant the mistrial.

14. With respect to the sentence; jurisprudence with regards to these offences virtually
uniformly refers to fines and probation as being the appropriate sentence, In this case,
the total sentencing was harsh, excessive and failed to properly take into account both
the fact that this was an isolated incident, despite the Appellant's many years in politics
without a blemish, and the public humiliation and excoriation that he had undergone.

15. in short, the trial judge failed to properly considerthe sentencing principles applicable

to a first ofiendert
16. Counsel may also rely upon such further and other grounds as may be advanced and as
this Honourable Court may permit

 Wmeremm Win.- 3va upon ruesouowms:

1. Thetranscripts orthe evidence and submissions,

2, The exhibits filed during the trial and sentencing,

3. The submissions of counsel, and

4. Such further and other materials or arguments or grounds as counsel may advise and
this Honourable Court may permit.

THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS:

An Order allowing the appeal and entering an acquittal, or

An Order allowing the appeal and ordering a new trial, or

An Order allowing the appeal against sentence and ordering a lesser sentence, or
4. Such further and other Order as this Honourable Court deems appropriate.



THE MAY 

 

 

 

THE GROUNDS FDR THE APPEAL ARE:
as they pertain to the Appellant, are Cl

3, .4 iiences that are of no
i. Cdunts an' .- as tar 

4"  
+he Appellant start as an allege-d Patti? arid thU?ar- CUTIJICLIDHS bug
[r I- .- -

be quashed. . as} value"
The learned trial judge. in assessing the meaning Elid '31 I

2- erred in finding that the term does not apply to espenses such as the conduct of
election suryeys or yoter ID or rrget out the yote" telephone calls to yoters,
per: of the Canada Eiecrions Act (?ecti

3. She therefore further erred in finding that the concept of "commerciai yoiue? only
applies to non-monetary contributions.

at. its a result, the judge erred in her decision to completely ignore the eyidence of defence

witnesses: Ellis, Parrin, Horrigan, Humphries or Berry.
5. The trial judge also erred in her ruling as to the admissibility and reliability of the

electronic documentary eyidence, both as eyidence and as corroboration of the
testimony of Frank Hall the Erown?s key witness.
E. in that regard, the trial iudge specifically erred in calling the Crown?s electronic witness
an ?expert,? when there was no such ruling. The defence witness, on the other hand,

was tendered as an expert, and was so found.
1. The learned trial judge, in assessing the credibility of the two main witnesses [Frank Hall

and. the Appellant], erred in the way that she differentiated her eyaluaticm of the
testimony of both witnesses, effectiyeiy placing a greater burden upon the defence.

3- More specifically, she especially erred in analyzing the appellant?s testimony in the light
of her drawing an adverse inference based on witnesses not called - somethingthat she

did not do with respect to Hall.
.9. This error is particularly egregious giyen that it was done at the Crown?s request, at the

end of the trial and despite an apparent agreement between counsel that John ty'lcNutt,
one ofthe key ?missing? witnesses referred to by the judge, would not testify at the
trial.

10. Her error yis-a-yis Hall?s credibility is further magnified by the fact that she
acknowledged ?reservations about his evidence".

11. Neyertheless, despite her credibility finding, the trial judge also erred in failing to
specifically find as a fact that the Appellant actually spent on voter ID calling
and calling during the election writ period, thus exceeding the statutory limit. This
was an essential element and at no point did thejudge make a finding of the amount
actually spent, as opposed to her ?nding that had been paid as a contract.

12. Compounding the error pertaining to credibility was Her Honour's failure to censider the
fact that the Crown?s inyestigation was fraught with incompetence, including the failure

mum a was stayed on. the itieneppie principle at the end of the trial. 1 

2

 

 

 

DATED at Toronto, this day ofJune, 2015.

Leo Adler A Coufim for the Appellant

y\

Adler Bytensky Prutschi Shikhman -- Criminal Litigation
5000 Yonge Street, Suite 1708

Toronto, Ontario MZN 7E9
MES-(Phone)
Ale-(fax)

--(emam