Adam N. Weisberg

S.H. appealed convictions for sexual assault and attempting to overcome resistance by choking.

The appeal raised issues regarding the trial judge's jury instruction on cross-count evidence, treatment of a prior consistent statement, denial of a Criminal Code s. 276 application, and alleged improper Crown closing arguments.

The Court of Appeal found reversible error in the jury instruction on cross-count evidence, which the Crown conceded was erroneous and not harmless.

The convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The applicants, two firefighters charged with fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from the date of the charges to the anticipated end of the trial was 35 months and one week.

After deducting three months of conceded defence delay, the net delay was 32 months and one week, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The Crown argued that additional periods, including a two-month delay for a judicial pre-trial, a two-month adjournment of the preliminary inquiry, and a seven-week judicial reserve period, should be deducted as defence delay or exceptional circumstances.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments, finding that the delays were not caused by the defence and that the Crown failed to take proactive steps to mitigate them.

The court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and granted a stay of proceedings.

On June 21, 2019, Parliament enacted Bill C-75, which substantially limited the availability of preliminary inquiries in Canada.

Prior to the amendments, any accused who elected trial in the Superior Court of Justice could request and obtain a preliminary inquiry.

After September 19, 2019, preliminary inquiries became available only for indictable offences punishable by 14 years' imprisonment or more.

The central issue on appeal was whether these amendments applied retrospectively to charges that were before the Ontario Court of Justice when the amendments came into force, specifically to accused who had elected trial in the Superior Court of Justice and requested preliminary inquiries before September 19, 2019.

The appellants were charged with sexual assault, which is not punishable by 14 years' imprisonment or more.

The Superior Court of Justice had prohibited the Ontario Court of Justice from holding preliminary inquiries in their cases.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the amendments do not apply to accused who had elected and requested preliminary inquiries before the amendments came into force.

In a drug trafficking prosecution arising from covert entries into two condominium units and a vehicle under a general warrant, the accused brought a Charter application challenging the searches and seeking exclusion of the seized cocaine and cash.

The court held that the accused had standing and a reasonable expectation of privacy in the condominium units and vehicle, but not in the common underground garages or the limited occupancy and fob information voluntarily provided by condominium staff.

Applying the reviewing standard for warrant validity, the court found the information to obtain did not establish reasonable and probable grounds as against the accused, rising only to reasonable suspicion despite his meeting with a known trafficking target and subsequent police observations.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that admission of the seized evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the evidence.

Following the ruling, the prosecution sought a stay of the charges under s. 579 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge's instructions to the jury on planning and deliberation were flawed.

The appellant conceded guilt for second degree murder but contended there was insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation for first degree murder.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the jury could reasonably infer planning and deliberation based on evidence of the appellant's contact with a witness approximately one week before the murder to facilitate fraudulent use of the victim's debit cards, combined with evidence of the nature and circumstances of the killing.

The applicant, charged with possession of proceeds of crime and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought an application to stay the proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was approximately 44 months.

The court found that the period during which the applicant was out of the country and the subsequent extradition process constituted a discrete event.

Deducting this period brought the net delay well below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, a man in his early 70s, appealed both his conviction and sentence for two counts of sexual assault of young girls (ages 12 and 9).

He pleaded guilty following plea negotiations and was sentenced to two years less a day in custody plus three years' probation.

On appeal, he alleged that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, rendering his guilty pleas involuntary and the sentence unfit.

The Court of Appeal found that the guilty pleas were voluntary and informed, that trial counsel provided reasonably competent advice, and that the sentence was fit and justified by the multiple incidents of sexual assault.

The court also identified that the sentence for one count was technically illegal as it exceeded the maximum available on summary conviction, but found that consecutive sentences were available and the overall sentence remained appropriate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with two counts of mischief to private property under section 430(4) of the Criminal Code for installing a concealed webcam in a condominium apartment that he leased and sublet to two women.

The defendant claimed the women were not in lawful occupancy and therefore had no right to lawful enjoyment of the property, and alternatively, that he acted with colour of right to protect his property.

The court found that the women were in lawful enjoyment of the residential premises despite the technical breach of lease terms, that privacy is a fundamental aspect of lawful enjoyment of a home, and that the defendant's installation and operation of the hidden camera constituted a wilful interference with that enjoyment.

The defendant's claim of colour of right was rejected as neither honest nor reasonable.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with threatening to cause death to the complainant on March 21, 2015, during a heated dispute regarding custody of their eight-year-old child.

The complainant alleged the accused threatened to kill her and bury her body so it would never be found.

The accused denied making any death threat, claiming he only threatened legal action.

The trial court found the accused not guilty, determining that while the accused intended to bully and intimidate the complainant, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a death threat was made.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to her highly emotional state, inability to recall exact words, and tendency to blur distinctions between threats of legal action and threats of death.

The accused applied on a bail review to remove a no-contact condition with the complainant spouse following allegations of domestic assault.

The complainant expressed a desire to reconcile and resume cohabitation, and both parties had begun counselling.

The court considered the risk of interference with the administration of justice and the need to protect the complainant under s. 515 of the Criminal Code.

While the court found no evidence of manipulation or interference with witnesses, it remained concerned about potential safety risks given the seriousness of the alleged assault.

The court declined to fully remove the no-contact condition but permitted contact during joint counselling sessions as a risk‑management measure.

The accused sought to introduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity through social media accounts (Tumblr and Ask.fm) in a sexual assault trial.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the social media postings may constitute "sexual activity" under section 276 of the Criminal Code, the evidence was not admissible because it lacked relevance to the central issue of whether the complainant consented to the sexual activity.

The court rejected arguments that the evidence was necessary to explain the complainant's knowledge of sexual practices, to establish similarity with a prior alleged assault, or to impeach the complainant's credibility.

The accused pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of a firearm contrary to section 91(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused inherited firearms from his grandfather and stored them in his closet after a basement flood.

He did not have a valid permit and was unaware of the legal requirements for firearm ownership.

His son, who was on bail for firearms-related offences, was living in the residence and could have accessed the firearms.

The Crown sought 90 days intermittent imprisonment; the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court imposed an absolute discharge, finding that despite the seriousness of firearm offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation, the unique circumstances, the accused's exemplary character, his guilty plea, cooperation with police, and the disproportionate impact of a criminal record on his business warranted a discharge.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for deceit and discreditable conduct, as well as the penalty of a six-month demotion, arising from his failure to properly investigate a fellow officer's possession of potentially stolen property.

The appellant argued the hearing officer misapprehended evidence and provided deficient reasons.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing officer's conclusions were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and that the penalty fell within the acceptable range of outcomes.

The appellants appealed their summary convictions and sentences arising from a group assault and robbery at a massage parlour.

Liang argued his conviction was unreasonable and his sentence unfit; his appeal was dismissed as the verdict was supported by evidence and the sentence was appropriate for a violent group attack.

Loi argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer conceded his liability without instructions.

The court found that Loi's counsel made an unauthorized concession equivalent to a guilty plea, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

Loi's appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography between April 6 and 7, 2010.

Police discovered 3,610 images and 191 movie clips of child pornography on the defendant's computer.

The Crown sought 9 months incarceration and 3 years probation, while the defence sought 90 days intermittent imprisonment and 1 year probation.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence with 1 year probation, finding that denunciation and general deterrence could be adequately addressed through this sentence.

The court considered the defendant's age, lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, extensive counselling, low risk of reoffending, and significant caregiving responsibilities for his brother as mitigating factors.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after bringing a loaded handgun into a community centre while searching for individuals involved in a prior robbery.

During a confrontation, the offender attempted to strike a young person with the firearm and the gun accidentally discharged, fatally wounding the victim.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors including the illegal possession of a loaded firearm, breach of a recognizance prohibiting firearm possession, flight from police, and the devastating impact on the victim’s family and the community.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, youth, lack of prior criminal record, expressions of remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court imposed a global sentence reflecting denunciation and deterrence while granting enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody due to remand conditions and institutional lockdowns.

The appellant police officer was found guilty of misconduct and demoted.

His association attempted to file a notice of appeal within the 30-day statutory period but mistakenly couriered it to the wrong address.

The appellant brought a motion, on consent of the respondent police service, for an order that the Commission had jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite the late service.

The Commission held that the 30-day time limit in s. 87(1) of the Police Services Act is substantive and cannot be waived.

However, the Commission found that the method of service is procedural.

Exercising its power under its Rules of Practice, the Commission waived the rule regarding the correct address and deemed the notice validly served within the appeal period.

The applicant sought exclusion of drug evidence discovered during a warrantless vehicle search, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Police stopped the vehicle after observing evasive driving in a neighbourhood known for drug activity and seeing the driver make movements inside the car.

The court held that the circumstances amounted only to suspicion and did not provide reasonable grounds to arrest or search.

Additional questioning after the applicant requested counsel constituted further Charter breaches.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework, the court excluded the evidence and dismissed the trafficking charge.

The appellant appealed a four-year sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to credit twenty-three months of pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal agreed that while the global sentence of four years was appropriate, the trial judge erred by not applying the conceded pre-trial custody credit.

The appeal was allowed to apply the twenty-three months credit, resulting in a net sentence of twenty-five months.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application to quash an order that he stand trial on offences under the Excise Tax Act.

He argued that the joint representation of himself and his co-accused wife by the same counsel at the preliminary inquiry created a conflict of interest that breached the principles of natural justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest at the preliminary inquiry stage or that his counsel's representation was compromised in a way that deprived him of a fair hearing.