Akshay Sanjiv Aurora

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed for loaded prohibited firearm possession and related offences after a collision, firearm discharge, flight, and disposal of the weapon in a residential area.

The court held the conditional sentence was demonstrably unfit and found a three-year penitentiary sentence would have been fit on the sentencing record, given denunciation and deterrence principles for serious public-safety firearm offending.

The court accepted significant mitigation, including youth, no prior record, rehabilitation, and a serious neurological condition that increased custodial hardship and treatment risk.

Fresh evidence established ongoing rehabilitation and unresolved worsening neurological concerns requiring continued monitoring.

The court granted leave to appeal sentence but declined reincarceration and directed continuation of the conditional sentence.

Crown appeal from a conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed on the respondent following a guilty plea to possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material (CSAEM).

The respondent's collection comprised over 22,000 images and 741 videos depicting the sexual abuse of real children, accumulated over several years.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to recognize significant aggravating factors, including the number of child victims, the duration and frequency of the offending conduct, and active participation in the CSAEM subculture.

The sentencing judge further erred by failing to prioritize denunciation and deterrence, instead focusing unduly on the offender's personal circumstances.

The Court of Appeal determined a 30-month custodial sentence was fit but declined to incarcerate the respondent at this stage, as he was halfway through his conditional sentence and resentencing would eliminate his three-year probation period.

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

The Crown sought an order to bifurcate its sentence appeal from the respondent's conviction appeal, both arising from the same proceedings.

The respondent was convicted of firearms offences, failing to remain at the scene of an accident, and refusing to comply with a demand for a breath sample, and was sentenced to a conditional sentence of 2 years less one day (618 days after Summers credit).

The Crown sought leave to appeal the sentence as tainted by errors in principle and demonstrably unfit, seeking a penitentiary sentence of 46 months and re-incarceration.

The respondent's conviction appeal was not yet perfected, with legal aid pending and no transcripts ordered.

The motion judge granted the Crown's request to bifurcate the appeals, finding that the conviction and sentence appeals were discrete and that delay in perfecting the conviction appeal would significantly prejudice the Crown's position on the sentence appeal.

The appellant, a lawyer, was convicted of criminal harassment, extortion, and two counts of uttering threats arising from his conduct toward a former client and a friend.

He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

He applied for bail pending appeal under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding that while the appeal was not frivolous, the appellant failed to meet the public interest component of the bail test on both public safety and public confidence grounds.

The appellant's paranoid and grandiose testimony at trial, combined with the gravity of the offences and the weakness of the appeal, supported detention.

Appeal from conviction for sexual assault and related offences.

The sole ground of appeal concerned an unsuccessful application to stay proceedings for unreasonable delay.

After accounting for defence delay, the trial judge found net delay of over 18 months and identified two exceptional circumstances, including pandemic-related backlog.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to articulate how pandemic delay specifically impacted the case and by speaking in generalities.

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's reasoning, finding it was open to her to rely on her familiarity with the jurisdiction and the pandemic delay it was experiencing, and that she was not required to assign the delay to a particular period of time.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Gerrard De Souza’s appeal from convictions for indecent assault and sexual assault.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal, all relating to the trial judge’s assessment of credibility and reliability.

The Court found no error in the trial judge’s approach, holding that her findings were grounded in the evidence and not in stereotypes or improper reasoning.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge’s handling of inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence or in her rejection of the defence theory of motive to fabricate.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Sami Kazi, appealed the October 24, 2024 disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which found him Not Criminally Responsible and ordered his detention with conditions.

After a subsequent Board hearing in January 2025 resulted in a new disposition, the Court of Appeal held that the appeal was moot, as the original disposition was no longer operative.

The court found no live controversy remained and declined to exercise discretion to hear the appeal, noting the issues were fact-specific and overtaken by events.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed J.S.'s conviction and sentence appeals for child luring and sexual interference.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of the complainant’s evidence or in the allocation of the burden of proof regarding the possibility of a third-party hacker.

The court also rejected arguments that the trial judge failed to consider the appellant’s personal circumstances or recent appellate guidance on family considerations in sentencing.

The sentence, including the lack of Downes credit for bail conditions, was upheld.

The appellant, Z.V., appealed convictions for sexual assault and choking with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The appeal raised two grounds: (1) that the trial judge misapprehended the complainant’s evidence regarding consent to oral sex, and (2) that the trial judge erred by using a finding of fabrication in the appellant’s evidence as circumstantial evidence of guilt without independent evidence of fabrication.

The Court of Appeal found no misapprehension of the complainant’s evidence and held that the trial judge’s use of the fabrication finding was limited to credibility assessment and did not constitute an error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, despite the delay being below the Jordan ceiling.

The application judge erred by assessing the reasonableness of the delay against a hypothetical scenario where judicial vacancies were filled, rather than the actual systemic circumstances.

The Court of Appeal clarified that the constitutional yardstick for below-ceiling delays is not an ideal state but the real-world conditions, and that delays due to judicial vacancies, while concerning, are not per se "unreasonable" under s. 11(b) if the overall delay remains presumptively reasonable.

The appeal was granted, the stay set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder for attempted murder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's conditional discharge order.

The Board found he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety, rejecting his treating physician's low-risk assessment due to insufficient factual grounding and limited self-reports.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Board did not abdicate its inquisitorial role and its decision was reasonable and supported by the record.

The appellant, Ghana Ariharan, appealed his sentence for fraud over $5,000 and failing to comply with an undertaking.

The sentencing judge imposed an 18-month custodial sentence (less pre-sentence credit) and a concurrent three-month sentence, along with a restitution order and fine in lieu of forfeiture of $81,995.00.

The appellant argued his restitution efforts were not adequately considered and the breach of undertaking sentence was excessive.

The Court of Appeal found the restitution efforts insignificant and the breach sentence not excessive.

However, the court agreed the trial judge erred in calculating the restitution and forfeiture amounts, adjusting them to $77,795.00.

The appeal was allowed to this extent and otherwise dismissed.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges including sexual assault and robbery.

The trial judge had found reasonable doubt due to credibility issues with both the complainant and the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by relying on stereotypical reasoning about how a sexual assault victim should behave and by failing to properly consider confirmatory evidence.

These errors materially affected the assessment of the complainant's credibility.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to three and a half years, appealed his sentence, questioning the sufficiency of "Downes credit" and seeking a further reduction based on post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts.

The Court of Appeal deferred to the trial judge's decision on Downes credit, finding no error in principle, and determined that the post-sentencing rehabilitation, while commendable, did not warrant an additional sentence reduction in this case.

The Ontario Review Board failed to fulfill its obligation to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition by declining to implement a joint submission for a detention order with community living privileges without considering less onerous alternatives.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ordering the implementation of the joint submission with an additional condition for a three-month review by the Board to assess compliance and determine the appropriate disposition.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault, appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that directed his transfer from Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

The ORB's decision was based on the recommendation of the appellant's treating psychiatrist, who believed CAMH's sexual behaviour clinic was necessary to address the appellant's hypersexuality and concerning behaviours.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the ORB's decision on a reasonableness standard, as established in R. v. Owen, and found that the ORB's analysis and conclusion were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, P.B., appealed convictions for two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference.

The appeal raised two grounds: the trial judge's alleged failure to address material contradictions between Crown witnesses and the impermissible use of complainants' lack of embellishment to bolster credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the inconsistency regarding a peripheral detail (a television in the appellant's room) was not a reversible error, especially given the complainants' age at the time of the events.

Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge's reference to the complainants' lack of embellishment was not used to improperly bolster credibility but rather to explain why their evidence was not rejected, particularly in light of defence suggestions of fabrication.

The appellant, convicted of home invasion robbery and declared a dangerous offender, appealed his sentence.

He argued that the sentencing judge erred by not awarding "Duncan credit" for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, specifically institutional lockdowns.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that Duncan credit is discretionary and not an entitlement.

The court found no error in the sentencing judge's decision, which concluded that the appellant's experience in lockdown conditions did not exceed the typical hardships of incarceration already accounted for by the 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) in 2007, appealed a decision by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his conditional discharge rather than granting an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued that the ORB's finding of a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and that the Board misapplied the significant threat test by reversing the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the ORB's decision was reasonable, supported by psychiatric evidence of the appellant's ongoing symptoms and risk of re-offence, and that the Board correctly applied the "significant threat" test under the Criminal Code without reversing the burden of proof.