Adam Paul Wheeler

The applicant, Arthur Rule, sought leave to appeal his 22-month custodial sentence for possessing and accessing child pornography and bail pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted both applications.

The sentencing judge had misstated the law regarding the availability of conditional sentences for these offences and failed to adequately consider a conditional sentence as an alternative to incarceration.

Furthermore, the applicant demonstrated unnecessary hardship due to severe medical conditions requiring complex daily care that would be difficult to manage in custody.

The court found the appeal had sufficient merit and that detention was not necessary in the public interest, as there were no public safety or flight concerns.

The appellant appealed a sentence of two years less a day for firearm offences, which arose from an incident where he intended to commit suicide with a sawed-off shotgun.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by placing undue emphasis on denunciation and deterrence without adequately considering the appellant's suicidal intent and the attenuated danger to the public.

The court also found an error in failing to consider the causal link between the appellant's mental health issues and addiction and his criminal conduct.

Given the appellant's significant rehabilitation efforts, the court substituted the custodial sentence with a conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed convictions for a shooting, arguing misapprehension of evidence, unreasonable verdicts, and that several convictions should be stayed under the rule against multiple convictions (Kienapple).

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's analysis of the evidence or the reasonableness of the verdict regarding identification.

However, the Crown conceded the Kienapple argument, leading to stays of conviction on six of the eleven counts.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for past offences, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition continuing his detention order.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal found the ORB's decision unreasonable, citing errors in assessing the appellant's community stay, failing to inquire into the hospital's COVID-related assessment cessation, dismissing housing offers as unprofessional, and relying on speculative rapid decompensation.

The court emphasized the "least onerous and least restrictive" principle.

The appeal was allowed, and a conditional discharge with specific conditions was ordered.

The appellant, N.K., appealed his convictions for sexual assault, assault, criminal harassment, and uttering threats, and his global sentence of five years and 11 months incarceration.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's application of the W.(D.) principle, assessment of credibility, and calculation of pre-sentence custody credit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessment or application of the W.(D.) principle.

However, the appeal from sentence was allowed in part; the pre-sentence custody credit was varied from five months to six months and one day, and the victim fine surcharge of $800 was set aside.

The appellant, G.J.S., appealed his conviction for sexual interference and sexual assault involving his step-daughter.

The trial judge had found the appellant guilty of these charges but not guilty of sexual exploitation, distinguishing between earlier and later alleged incidents.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's use of the complainant's prior consistent statements and a threatening incident involving her biological father.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge improperly used this evidence to enhance the complainant's general trustworthiness and reliability, rather than solely to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication.

This improper use was deemed determinative of guilt for the earlier allegations.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered on both counts.

The appellant appealed his sentence for robbery, arguing the sentencing judge erred by departing from a joint sentencing position.

The appellant had pleaded guilty, and after the judge expressed concern with an initial joint position, a new, higher joint position was proposed.

The sentencing judge rejected both and imposed a significantly higher sentence.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the high threshold for rejecting a joint submission to the final proposed sentence.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to reflect the final joint position.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering continued detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment in 2003, challenged the Board's decision to maintain his detention, arguing the Board failed to consider statutory factors regarding reintegration into society and other needs, and failed to exercise the constant vigilance required for long-term detainees with non-violent index offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had adequately considered all relevant factors and that the evidence reasonably supported the conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

A youthful first offender appealed a sentence of seven and one-half years (reduced from ten years on account of pre-sentence custody) imposed for incest, sexual assault, and making, possessing and distributing child pornography involving his four-year-old daughter.

The appellant sought a reduction to four and one-half years and sought to set aside the victim surcharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits but allowed it in part by setting aside the victim surcharge under R. v. Boudreault.

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to stop at the scene of an accident following a November 2015 incident in which his vehicle struck a pedestrian.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in failing to apply the W.(D.) test, in providing insufficient reasons, and in failing to adequately address the mens rea element of dangerous driving.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate and the convictions were clearly supported by the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the trial judge committed no errors of principle.

The appellant was convicted of break and enter of a dwelling house and other offences based primarily on DNA evidence found in a glove discovered at the crime scene.

The Crown admitted in an agreed statement of fact that the appellant's DNA was found in the glove but called no expert evidence regarding DNA transfer characteristics or whether the appellant's DNA was the sole profile on the glove.

The Court of Appeal found the verdicts unreasonable, holding that the DNA evidence alone was incapable of bearing the burden of proving the appellant left the glove at the scene.

The convictions were set aside and acquittals entered.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 23, 2018.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2011 for robbery, uttering threats, assault causing bodily harm, possession of property obtained by crime, and disguise with intent, challenged the Board's decision to maintain a detention order.

The appellant has diagnoses including schizophrenia, borderline intellectual functioning, cannabis use disorder, and antisocial traits.

During the year under review, the appellant had positive urine drug screens and exhibited poor insight into substance use disorder.

The Board found the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered continued detention with opportunity for passes up to seven days when ready.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was not unreasonable and well-supported by evidence.