Andreea Ioan Baiasu

The accused, a young person, was involved in a gun battle on a crowded street during which an innocent bystander was killed by a bullet fired by a rival shooter.

The preliminary inquiry judge committed the accused for trial on second degree murder.

The motion judge quashed the committal for murder but remitted the matter for manslaughter.

Both the Crown and the accused appealed.

The Court of Appeal held that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the accused's participation in a mutual shootout caused the victim's death.

The Court also held that the accused could be committed for second degree murder under s. 229(c) of the Criminal Code, as he engaged in a dangerous act for an unlawful object that he knew was likely to cause death.

The Crown's appeal was allowed and the committal for second degree murder was restored.

The young person appealed their conviction, arguing that their s. 11(b) Charter rights were infringed due to two periods of delay: time taken by the original trial judge to render a decision, and a two-month delay due to the judge's illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the time taken to craft reasons was reasonable and part of the inherent time requirements of the case.

The court also held it was not unreasonable to wait two months to see if the ill judge could resume duties before rescheduling, and noted the appellant suffered no special prejudice as they were in custody on other serious charges.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentence given the appellant's extensive criminal record and failure to take meaningful steps toward treatment.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for breach of trust against his employer and fraud involving identity theft of credit card holders.

The trial judge noted the significant disruption to victims and financial institutions, and although the actual loss was limited to $40,000 due to early detection, the potential for greater loss existed.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence fit and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a total sentence of 9 years and 1 month (including pre-trial custody credit) for robberies involving an imitation weapon.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was beyond the appropriate range, noting the appellant's prior record and rehabilitative prospects.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced to 6 years, taking into account the 16 months credited for pre-trial custody, for an effective sentence of 7 years and 4 months.

The applicant sought leave to appeal from a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the police officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make a demand.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, noting that the sufficiency of evidence is not a question of law and there was ample evidence to support the finding.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board directing his detention at a minimum secure unit, subject to living in the community at the hospital's discretion.

The appellant sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety was supported by evidence of his lack of insight, need for medication, and risk of drug use.

The Court held that a detention disposition was necessary to ensure the hospital's continued authority to manage his risk and compel his return if his condition deteriorated.

The young person appealed a sentence of 18 months (12 secure custody, 6 community) for robbery with an imitation firearm.

The Crown conceded the trial judge erred by failing to consider open custody under the Young Offenders Act.

The Court of Appeal rejected the Crown's argument that its appellate powers were limited to adjusting the custody levels, holding it could impose a new sentence.

Noting the young person's significant rehabilitation, the Court varied the sentence to time served (15 weeks) followed by community supervision and probation.

The appeal of the DNA order was dismissed.

The young person appealed a conviction entered by the youth court.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing identification evidence, applying the W.D. framework, and misapprehending evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment or application of the law.