Andrew Benjamin Cappell

The appellant appealed his conviction for home invasion-related charges involving a firearm, including armed robbery, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, discharge of a firearm with intent to endanger life, and unlawful confinement.

The trial judge convicted the appellant on April 8, 2015, and imposed a global sentence of nine years and six months, less three years and four months credit for pre-sentence custody on June 30, 2015.

The Court of Appeal upheld both the convictions and the sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of identification evidence and rejecting the argument that the sentence was too harsh for a youthful offender.

The appellant, a half-sibling of the complainant, appealed a conviction for sexual abuse.

The trial judge found it dangerous to convict on most of the complainant's allegations but convicted on one incident (the basement incident) where the complainant provided detailed testimony corroborated by the parents' observations.

The appellant challenged the conviction on two grounds: first, that the parents' evidence contained inconsistencies with the complainant's account, and second, that the conviction was unreasonable given witness inconsistencies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and was entitled to accept the complainant's detailed account despite minor inconsistencies attributable to the passage of eight years.

Appeal from a sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice following a conviction.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's assessment of whether section 8 Charter rights were breached during a search.

The trial judge found that a level 3 search was reasonable except for the "squat and cough" procedure, which was deemed unreasonable.

The trial judge reduced the sentence as a remedy under section 24(1) of the Charter.

The appellant sought a stay of proceedings, arguing systemic deficiencies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in her findings and determining that the sentence reduction was an appropriate remedy for the breach.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision dismissing his appeal of an assault conviction.

The appellant had been represented at trial by a law student from a legal aid clinic and argued on appeal that he received ineffective legal representation because his counsel failed to raise Charter issues regarding a strip search conducted after his arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the Summary Conviction Appeal Court Judge's determination regarding the reasonableness of the legal representation was a case-specific determination that did not extend beyond the four corners of the case and was not clearly wrong.

The other issues raised by the appellant also failed to meet the test for leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a psychiatric facility, arguing he did not pose a significant threat to public safety and should receive an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board reasonably addressed conflicting medical evidence and properly considered a recent incident where the appellant brought methamphetamine into the facility.

The appeal was dismissed, as the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering her detention in a hospital.

The appellant argued the Board's finding that she posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and that her risk could be managed in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant's history of violence, mental illness, substance abuse, and noncompliance with medication and court orders.

The Court relied on expert evidence that the appellant continued to suffer from a significant mental illness and lacked community support, justifying the detention order.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving and sentenced to a one-year driving prohibition and a $1,200 fine.

He sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his summary conviction appeal, arguing the trial judge and summary conviction appeal judge erred in their allocation of delay periods under the Morin analysis for his s. 11(b) Charter application.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding the summary conviction appeal judge was entitled to review and characterize the reasons for delay, and no clear error of law or question of general significance was raised.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault following a stabbing, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding residue on a gate and erred in finding certain evidence confirmatory of the victim's testimony.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge reasonably relied on a police officer's opinion that the residue was blood.

Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge, who treated the victim as a Vetrovec witness, was justified in concluding that multiple independent items of evidence cumulatively confirmed the victim's testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for armed robbery.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's decision, agreeing that the only reasonable rational conclusion arising from the circumstantial evidence was that the appellant was a party to the offence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was discharged at a preliminary inquiry for offences against his domestic partner because the preliminary inquiry judge found no evidence of identity.

The Crown successfully applied for certiorari to quash the discharge.

The appellant appealed, arguing the preliminary inquiry judge's error was not jurisdictional.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the failure to consider the identity of names and biographical details as some evidence of identity amounted to a failure to consider the whole of the evidence under s. 548(1) of the Criminal Code, constituting a jurisdictional error.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference against a 13-year-old complainant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in admitting a hearsay statement from the complainant's sister and in accepting the mother's evidence regarding a change in the sisters' relationship.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in admitting the hearsay statement, the curative proviso applied because the trial judge explicitly stated he would have reached the same conclusion without it.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's acceptance of the mother's evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence, seeking enhanced credit for pre-trial custody.

The Crown conceded the appeal, as the original sentence was imposed before the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Summers.

The Court of Appeal granted the appellant credit for 24 months of pre-trial custody at a rate of 1.5 to 1, reducing the sentence by 12 months.

The accused, an O.P.P. sergeant, was tried on charges of breach of trust and attempting to obstruct justice arising from allegedly false entries on traffic notice and summons documents for speeding offences.

The Crown relied on inconsistencies between the officer notes and laser-device data, as well as an interview said to contain admissions.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court found the accused's evidence was not fully believable but also could not be rejected, particularly given supporting circumstances including the laser-use log, recovered notes, and significant confusion and misleading statements during the police interview.

Considering the evidence as a whole, the court was left with a reasonable doubt about whether the accused had the requisite intent to falsify the documents.

The accused was acquitted on all charges.

A police sergeant was charged with assault causing bodily harm under Section 267(b) of the Criminal Code for striking a complainant in the face during an arrest at a police station.

The complainant had attended the station to dispute a traffic ticket, became agitated, made threatening statements about arsons, and physically resisted arrest by locking his shoulder and keeping his hands apart to prevent handcuffing.

The sergeant delivered an open-hand distraction strike to the complainant's face, causing dental injuries.

The court found the sergeant's use of force was reasonable and necessary under Section 25 of the Criminal Code, as the complainant was actively resisting arrest and the second handcuff had not been fully secured at the time of the strike.

The charge was dismissed.

Two Ottawa police constables were charged with assault causing bodily harm after taking an intoxicated man to the ground during a street response.

The Crown relied heavily on eyewitness testimony from two civilian witnesses who observed the incident from across the street.

The court found the civilian witnesses' evidence to be extremely unreliable due to credibility issues, inconsistencies, memory problems, bias, and potential collusion.

The court found that the officers lawfully used force in self-defence and in the execution of their duties under the Criminal Code when they took the intoxicated man to the ground after he made aggressive arm motions toward them.

The charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences after police executed a search warrant at his apartment and found crack cocaine, cash, and a loaded handgun in a safe.

The accused challenged the validity of the search warrant and the lawfulness of the search under the Charter.

The court upheld the search warrant, finding the confidential informant information reliable, and ruled the search of the safe was authorized by the warrant.

During the trial, an unusual procedural issue arose requiring defence counsel to testify regarding a prior inconsistent statement made by a defence witness.

Ultimately, the court rejected the accused's testimony that he did not know about the gun, finding him guilty of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The respondent was acquitted of carrying a concealed weapon after police found a gas-powered pellet gun in his waistband.

The trial judge and summary conviction appeal court held that a pellet gun is only a weapon if there is evidence it was used or intended to be used for a harmful purpose.

The Crown sought leave to appeal, arguing a pellet gun is a firearm and therefore a weapon regardless of intent.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding it was bound by its previous decision in McManus, which held that a pellet gun is not a weapon unless used or intended for a dangerous purpose.

The applicant, convicted of aggravated assault and other offences for administering cocaine to her two-year-old son, applied for bail pending her appeal.

She argued her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance due to a pending suspension by the Law Society and a breach of the duty of loyalty.

The Court of Appeal found the grounds of appeal to be weak, noting the trial judge had already dismissed a mistrial application on these grounds.

Given the serious nature of the offences and the weak appeal grounds, the court held the applicant failed to show her detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was approached by a police officer investigating the use of a stolen credit card at a liquor store.

The officer told the appellant to 'wait a minute' while he asked preliminary questions.

After receiving further information over the radio, the officer arrested the appellant and informed him of his right to counsel.

The appellant argued he was detained from the moment the officer told him to wait, and that his right to counsel was violated.

The Supreme Court held that while the right to counsel must be provided immediately upon detention, the appellant was not detained during the initial exploratory questioning.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was sentenced to a 90-day intermittent sentence for assault causing bodily harm, and two concurrent 18-month conditional sentences for uttering a death threat and pointing a firearm.

The Court of Appeal held the intermittent sentence was legal but had to be served on consecutive days.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that a conditional sentence is not a 'sentence of imprisonment' within the meaning of s. 732(1) of the Criminal Code, and therefore does not render an intermittent sentence illegal or require it to be served on consecutive days.