Andrew Benjamin Cappell

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.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 25, 2017.

The appellant challenged the Board's removal of the possibility of community living from her disposition conditions.

The Board had acted on a joint position to detain the appellant in the secure unit with potential transfer to the general forensic unit but not to the community.

The appellant's treating physician testified that community living was not a realistic goal given the appellant's recent incidents of unauthorized absence and violence towards hospital staff, and that the frustration of an unattainable condition had contributed to the appellant's anger and violent behavior.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it entirely reasonable to remove the community living condition based on the evidence.

The appellant was convicted of ten counts relating to possession of a prohibited firearm and ammunition following a search warrant execution at a boarding house where a shotgun and ammunition were found in his basement apartment.

A partial palm print was found on a plastic bag containing shotgun shells.

The Crown called expert evidence on friction ridge analysis to connect the print to the appellant.

The trial judge permitted the Crown to recall a witness to provide additional expert opinion on the same issue after the first expert's testimony was deemed unsatisfactory.

The appellant appealed on two grounds: (1) that the trial judge erred in allowing the Crown to recall the witness, and (2) that the trial judge misapprehended the expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's discretionary decision to permit the witness recall and no misapprehension of the expert evidence regarding the friction ridge analysis.

The appellant appealed his sentence of eight years imprisonment for sexually assaulting his girlfriend's daughter over a period of approximately one year beginning when the victim was 12 years old.

The appellant sought leave to appeal and argued that the sentencing judge erred by failing to adequately consider his guilty plea, rehabilitative potential, and Aboriginal background under the Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge erred in requiring a causal connection between the appellant's Aboriginal background and the offences, the sentence remained fit given the gravity of the crimes and their devastating impact on the victim.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 24, 2017.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge, arguing it was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to protect the public.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision to impose a detention order with community living privileges at the discretion of the hospital, finding that the Board reasonably determined this was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition given the appellant's admitted risk to public safety, history of non-compliance with medication, alcohol use, and pattern of rule violations.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching of a thirteen-year-old cousin.

The primary ground of appeal was that the appellant received ineffective assistance from trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, noting that trial counsel had conducted an extensive and rigorous cross-examination of the complainant.

The trial judge had provided detailed reasons for disbelieving the appellant and accepting the complainant's evidence, finding consistency on core issues.

The Court found no basis to suggest that a different approach by trial counsel would have led to a different result.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction on the grounds that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in rejecting his evidence as lacking credibility and defying logic.

The appellant specifically challenged three of the trial judge's six reasons for rejection.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant's conditional sentence resumed operation effective November 8, 2017.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the loss of a video recording of the complainant's statement violated his fair trial rights.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's finding of no unacceptable negligence was reasonable and that the loss of the recording was not so prejudicial as to impair the appellant's fair trial rights.

The court found that contemporaneous and detailed police notes provided a sufficient substitute for the lost recording, and that the defence failed to demonstrate actual prejudice.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 5.5 years (66 months) less 25 months credit for time in predisposition custody, resulting in a net sentence of 41 months in federal penitentiary.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, flight from police, and possession of marijuana for trafficking purposes.

The appellant contended the trial judge erred in principle by failing to apply restraint as a first-time offender and by imposing a sentence outside the range for similar offenders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit and appropriate given the serious nature of the offences.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault entered by Justice Quinlan of the Superior Court of Justice on September 23, 2011.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the trial judge shifted the burden of proof by assuming the assault occurred as a basis for rejecting a defence argument; and second, that the trial judge erred in failing to explain how she could convict given her comment that the defence theory regarding how some injuries were caused was "equally plausible." The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of one count of indecent assault and one count of gross indecency relating to a complainant (TS) for events that occurred in 1978 when the complainant was 16 years old and the appellant was her skating coach.

He received a 12-month conditional sentence.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility findings and the admission of reply evidence from the complainant's boyfriend.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no palpable and overriding error in the credibility assessments and determining that the reply evidence was properly admitted as it addressed a live issue that arose from the defence case.