Andrew Benjamin Cappell

The appellant, Shafaq Joya, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that imposed a detention order with privileges, arguing for a conditional discharge as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test and reasonably determined that a detention order was necessary.

The court emphasized that the Board's decision was based on the brutal nature of the index offence and the need for close monitoring, distinguishing it from cases where expediency alone justified a restrictive disposition.

The appellant, Feisal Noor, appealed his conviction on firearms-related charges, arguing that his s. 9 Charter right against arbitrary detention and s. 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure were violated.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the police had reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention and that the handgun was found in plain view during a lawful struggle, thus dismissing the Charter application and affirming the conviction.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possessing and accessing child pornography, arguing that evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant should have been excluded due to breaches of his Charter rights, specifically the right to counsel under s. 10(b).

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in concluding that the appellant was not detained prior to his formal arrest, applying the R. v. Grant factors.

The court determined that the appellant was psychologically detained from the moment police entered his home, and his s. 10(b) rights were violated.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant factors, the court found the Charter breach serious, the impact on the appellant significant, and society's interest in the administration of justice favoured exclusion.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, convictions quashed, and acquittals entered.

The appellant was convicted of fraud over $5,000 and appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient for meaningful appellate review and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons adequately addressed the live issues, including the credibility of the key witness, and that the verdict was reasonable given the direct evidence presented.

The court reiterated the deference owed to trial judges' credibility findings and clarified that a W.(D.) analysis was not required as the case was based on direct, not circumstantial, evidence.

The appellant, Pius Bempong, appealed his conviction for sexual interference, arguing that the jury's verdicts of not guilty for sexual assault but guilty for sexual interference, based on the same facts, were inconsistent and unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the apparent inconsistency could be reconciled by a legal error in the trial judge's instructions regarding the definition of "force" in sexual assault versus "touching" in sexual interference, as per the framework established in R. v. R.V. The court clarified that the Crown is not required to cross-appeal an acquittal to rebut an inconsistent verdict argument raised by an appellant.

The appellant, Tesean Alvarez, appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace, arguing the trial judge erred in jury instructions regarding eyewitness identification reliability, Vetrovec warnings, exculpatory evidence, and cross-racial identification, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's instructions on eyewitness identification were inadequate, particularly concerning flaws in the police identification process and the distinction between inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.

While other grounds of appeal were dismissed, the court concluded that the jury was not properly equipped to assess the identification evidence, which was central to the Crown's case.

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

The appellant appealed convictions for obstructing a peace officer, firearm offences, breach of recognizance, and drug possession.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in determining the moment of the appellant's detention under the Charter.

The Court held that the appellant was psychologically detained when the police cruiser blocked his vehicle, and that this detention was arbitrary, leading to a breach of his s. 9 Charter rights.

Furthermore, the police failed to immediately advise him of his s. 10(b) right to counsel.

Applying the Grant factors under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the Court concluded that the evidence obtained as a result of these breaches must be excluded, as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was allowed, and acquittals were entered on all counts.

This criminal trial concerned an assault charge against a police officer, Constable Scott Douglas, for an incident involving the arrest of Mr. Trevaughn Titus.

The defence relied on section 25 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the officer acted on reasonable grounds and used necessary force during the arrest for a Trespass to Property Act violation.

The court found that the officer had a credible basis for reasonable grounds to arrest and that the single distractionary punch delivered was a reasonable and necessary use of force in the circumstances, consistent with police training.

The officer was found not guilty.

The appellant, Robert Gary Anderson, appealed his conviction for criminal harassment and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conduct regarding the jury charge, an alleged juror falling asleep, or the imposed two-year suspended sentence.

Both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography, arguing the jury's verdict was unreasonable and that expert evidence was required to prove his knowledge and control of the files.

The police found a computer in the appellant's bedroom containing over 3,800 images of child pornography.

The Court of Appeal held that the jury was entitled to rely on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's computer expertise and the testimony of his housemate, to conclude that the only rational inference was that the appellant knew the images were on his computer.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a transit enforcement officer, appealed his convictions for fabricating evidence and obstruction of justice, as well as his sentence.

He had issued fraudulent tickets to homeless individuals to cover up time theft.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in rejecting the appellant's alternative inference that the tickets were issued on information and belief.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, and the 14-day intermittent sentence was reduced to time served, in light of recent jurisprudence making conditional sentences available for fabricating evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and three-year sentence for the sexual assault of a 12-year-old complainant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing to leave the defence of mistaken belief in age to the jury and by misdirecting the jury on the impact of possible witness collusion.

The appellant also advanced a fresh evidence claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing his trial lawyer failed to properly advise him on the evidentiary status of a social media screenshot when discussing whether he should testify.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the mistaken belief in age defence, no reversible error in the jury instructions, and that trial counsel's advice met the standard of reasonable professional judgment.

The sentence was upheld as fit.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference involving a young relative.

He appealed on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging his trial counsel failed to properly advise him about his right to testify and effectively prevented him from doing so.

The Court of Appeal found that trial counsel failed to provide meaningful advice on the advantages and disadvantages of testifying.

Concluding that the appellant likely would have testified if properly advised and that his testimony could have reasonably affected the verdict, the Court found a miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial dates were lost due to a lack of available judges, which the Crown argued was an 'exceptional circumstance' caused by two judges attending a compulsory education program and a third judge being unexpectedly ill.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that judicial education is a foreseeable systemic issue, not an exceptional circumstance.

Furthermore, the Crown failed to prove that the unexpected illness of one judge caused the delay in this specific case, as other priority matters were also not reached.

Ara Koundakjian appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, having sought a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued the Board misstated the governing legal test by using "appropriate" instead of "necessary and appropriate" and failed to meaningfully consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board understood the correct standard despite the shorthand, and that its determination of continued detention was reasonable and entitled to deference given the appellant's history of mental illness, substance abuse (cocaine), lack of insight, frequent breaches of disposition conditions, and the significant risk of serious harm to the public.

An appeal against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board was dismissed as moot.

The parties agreed that a later board disposition rendered the appeal academic, leading the court to dismiss the matter without addressing the merits of the original appeal.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR), appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition, which was a hybrid detention order with potential for community living.

The appellant had a history of non-compliance with previous conditional discharge orders, leading to hospitalization and absconding.

The appellant argued for a less restrictive disposition, but the Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding its reasons comprehensive and reasonable given the appellant's continued significant threat to public safety and history of absconding.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and assault involving a child victim between ages 11 and 14.

The respondent had made admissions in a voluntary police statement but denied the allegations at trial.

The trial judge found the respondent's denials not credible and characterized portions of the police statement as a confession to a sexual crime, yet acquitted the respondent.

The appellate court found the trial judge engaged in faulty reasoning, failed to make necessary findings of fact, failed to reconcile conflicting evidence, and provided insufficient reasons for the acquittal.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on all counts.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering detention in a secure forensic unit became moot upon the appellant's death while in custody.

The Court of Appeal considered whether special circumstances warranted proceeding with the appeal despite the general rule that appeals abate upon the death of the appellant.

Finding no systemic issues, legal questions of general public importance, or collateral consequences that would justify exercising discretion to hear the appeal, the court dismissed the appeal as abated.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition granting a conditional discharge to an NCR accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board found the appellant continued to pose a significant threat and imposed conditions including psychiatric medication compliance, monthly hospital reporting, and substance abstinence.

The Court of Appeal found the Board applied the wrong legal test, conflating the possibility of decompensation with a positive finding of significant threat.

However, fresh evidence of subsequent concerning behaviour (drug use, medication non-compliance, renewed focus on the victim) warranted remission to the Board for reassessment under the correct legal standard.