Amy Rose

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of unsavoury Crown witnesses, misapprehended evidence regarding a co-accused's guilty plea, and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or treatment of the evidence.

The appellant also appealed his three and one-half year sentence, arguing it was unfit following the Supreme Court's decision striking down the mandatory minimum.

The Court dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that the offence fell at the 'true crime' end of the spectrum and the sentence was fit given the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of invitation to sexual touching of a child and acquitted of sexual assault.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the verdicts were inconsistent because there was no evidence the child did not comply with the invitations, which would have constituted sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no necessary logical inconsistency.

The court noted the jury may have misunderstood that the appellant's participation in the physical contact amounted to an assault, but this error would have enured to the appellant's benefit and did not undermine the convictions.

The Crown appealed the refusal of a trial judge to make a DNA data bank order pursuant to s. 487.05(1) of the Criminal Code against a young person.

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and issued the order sought by the Crown.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board following a finding that she was not criminally responsible for uttering threats and assaulting a peace officer.

The Board ordered her detained in a Secure Forensic Unit due to active, untreated persecutory delusions and a significant threat to public safety.

On appeal, the appellant and amicus curiae argued the Board relied on inadmissible hearsay and failed to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board is entitled to consider hearsay evidence such as police occurrence reports, and that the hybrid detention order was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous option given the appellant's refusal of treatment and lack of insight.

The appellant pled guilty to two robberies and an assault, receiving a total sentence of 4.5 years plus 60 days.

He appealed the sentence, arguing it violated the parity principle compared to his co-accused and that the sentencing judge erred by referencing a robbery he was not convicted of.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disparity justified by the appellant's lengthy youth record compared to his first-offender co-accused.

The court also held the factual error was harmless, as the robbery the appellant was convicted of involved similar violence, and the sentence was at the low end of the range for home invasion robbery.

The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to one year of imprisonment.

On appeal, she introduced fresh evidence that her trial counsel failed to advise the sentencing judge of a co-accused's six-month sentence and the immigration consequences of a sentence of six months or more.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, found the appellant's culpability similar to her co-accused, and reduced the sentence to six months less a day to preserve her right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division.

The appellant, a permanent resident, was convicted of aggravated assault after burning her ten-year-old child with a hot iron.

She appealed her 20-month sentence, seeking a reduction to five months to preserve her right to appeal a removal order under immigration law.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge erred by failing to expressly consider the specific immigration consequences, the 20-month sentence remained fit and proportionate given the egregious breach of trust and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The appeal was dismissed.