Andrew Benjamin Cappell

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.

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.

The appellant appealed his conviction for obtaining credit by false pretences and inducing a person to act on a false document.

The appellant argued that the trial judge's finding that the mortgage broker could have been naive was inconsistent with a finding of fraudulent conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal rejected this submission, finding that the trial judge's determination that the appellant actively participated in drafting false rental agreements and submitted them knowing they were false was sufficient to ground the conviction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of various drugs.

He received a sentence of two years less a day on the aggravated assault conviction with concurrent sentences on drug charges, followed by two years' probation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction on the aggravated assault charge and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The conviction appeal raised three grounds: improper cross-examination by the Crown on a girlfriend's statement, improper splitting of the Crown's case by calling the girlfriend in reply, and alleged misdirection on the defence of self-defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence from two years less a day to 12 months' imprisonment and vacating the victim surcharge.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and break and enter following a judge alone trial.

The trial judge found the appellant was the main instigating force behind a home invasion robbery, though he did not physically participate, and was involved in a series of residential break-ins.

On appeal, the court allowed the appeal in part: the robbery conviction was set aside and substituted with a theft conviction; convictions on two break and enter counts were set aside and acquittals entered due to improper reliance on similar fact evidence.

The sentence of 18 months was maintained as concurrent to the remaining convictions.

The appellant appealed her conviction for attempted fraud over $5,000 and public mischief arising from a false report that her vehicle had been stolen.

The trial judge found the appellant not credible based on numerous inconsistencies in her evidence, including discrepancies in purchase financing, vehicle registration mileage, timeline inconsistencies, and critically, key scan evidence showing the appellant's key had not been used to access the vehicle since April 20, 2010—eight months before she claimed to have purchased it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no misapprehension of evidence and that the trial judge's conclusions were reasonably available on the evidence presented.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 10, 2018.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for possession of weapons dangerous, sought a conditional discharge or alternatively a new hearing.

The Board maintained a detention order in the general forensic unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with relaxed reporting requirements.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable due to inadequate reasons regarding whether the appellant's risk to the public could be managed under a conditional discharge.

The court directed the Board to reconsider the disposition at its next hearing with proper consideration of relevant factors, including mechanisms for securing attendance at hospital and the timing of any intervention.

Appeal from conviction and sentence for firearm-related offences and possession of marijuana.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's ruling that he was not detained during a police-citizen interaction on a Toronto Community Housing Corporation property, and that evidence obtained should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no detention occurred and that the interaction was a lawful community policing exercise.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part to correct a pre-sentence custody calculation error.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence from the Superior Court of Justice.

The conviction appeal was dismissed as the appellant raised matters to which defence counsel did not object at trial and which did not affect the fairness of the trial.

However, leave to appeal sentence was granted and the sentence appeal was allowed.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge made calculation errors in sentencing.

The appellate court varied the sentence to time served.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault with a weapon and his sentence of thirteen months' custody (less four months credit for pre-trial house arrest).

The trial judge had acquitted him of aggravated assault, uttering a threat to cause death, and possessing a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The appeal raised three grounds: (1) the verdict was unreasonable because the trial judge failed to find the requisite mens rea to threaten; (2) the conviction was inconsistent with the acquittal on the weapons charge; and (3) the trial judge failed to adequately scrutinize the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld both conviction and sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault following a party at a mutual friend's home.

The appellant did not dispute that sexual intercourse occurred but claimed it was consensual.

The trial judge found the complainant was too intoxicated to consent to sexual activity and convicted the appellant.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's findings regarding the complainant's capacity to consent, the use of a toxicology report, DNA evidence, and the consideration of his criminal record.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no errors in the trial judge's reasoning and dismissing all grounds of appeal.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition concerning a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) offender with a long history of serious psychiatric illness, including sexual sadism and pedophilia.

The appellant sought transfer from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care to a less secure all-male facility at either the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) or Brockville Mental Health Centre to access escorted community privileges.

The Review Board majority refused the transfer, citing concerns about diminished quality of life.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to meaningfully consider the appellant's reintegration into society and by failing to assign appropriate weight to the appellant's reasonable preferences and the objective benefits of transfer.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and common assault by a trial judge sitting without a jury.

He was sentenced to 42 months' imprisonment on the sexual assault conviction and one year concurrent on the common assault conviction.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his sexual assault conviction, arguing that the trial judge's findings of corroborative evidence were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly identified corroborating evidence in the complainant's flight from the house naked in February and the neighbours' observations of her state and demeanor, which provided powerful confirmation of her account of sexual and physical assault.

The appellant appealed his convictions on two counts of fraud and one count of uttering a forged document.

He challenged the application judge's denial of his pre-Jordan section 11(b) application for a stay of proceedings based on trial delay, and his Rowbotham application for state-funded legal representation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decisions, finding that the delay did not exceed Morin guidelines when properly calculated, and that the appellant failed to establish indigence or that his fair trial rights would be materially compromised without counsel.