Andrew J. Hotke

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault.

He sought to admit fresh evidence, a hospital report confirming broken fingers, to support his self-defence argument.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the fresh evidence were admitted, it would not change the result because there was no basis for a self-defence claim during the second altercation, which was the basis of the charge.

The trial judge had already found that the appellant escalated the conflict and that his actions were not in response to a threat.

The appellant, Wayne Thomas Hill, appealed his conviction and sentence for two counts of attempted abduction of a child and two counts of breaching a prohibition order.

The appeal raised two issues: a request to vary a blanket lifetime internet ban imposed as part of his sentence, and the requirement for registration in the sex offender registry.

The Court of Appeal varied the internet prohibition order to a more specific set of restrictions, aligning with the nature of the order granted in R. v. Brar, but dismissed the appeal regarding the sex offender registry and all other issues.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that directed his detention at a forensic psychiatric program.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, while the Hospital and Crown supported continued detention.

Duty counsel argued the Board erred by not giving meaningful consideration to a conditional discharge, suggesting the decision was based on hospital convenience.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusion was not solely based on convenience but on a reasoned assessment that a detention order was the least onerous and restrictive disposition, necessary for the ability to quickly return the appellant to hospital if he decompensated and to approve his accommodation given his fluctuating insight into substance use and its impact on mental health.

The appellant, convicted of advocating genocide, promotion of hatred, criminal harassment, threatening death, and identity fraud, appealed his conviction and sentence.

The offences stemmed from a campaign of harassment against his ex-wife and others.

The appellant raised several grounds of appeal, including being duped into a judge-alone trial, judicial bias, trial adjournment prejudice, breach of Charter rights (ss. 8 and 9), and misapprehension of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding no basis to interfere with the trial counsel's re-election, no support for bias or Charter infringements, and no material misapprehension of evidence.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, and the appeal from sentence, not pursued, was also dismissed.

Alisa Chaly appealed her convictions for refusing to provide a breath sample and breach of recognizance, following an unsuccessful summary conviction appeal.

She sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing errors regarding arbitrary detention and the loss of booking area video.

The Court denied leave, finding no questions of law significant to the administration of justice or clear errors.

The trial judge's findings on arbitrary detention (lack of evidence) and the video loss (not negligent, no material prejudice) were upheld.

The victim surcharge was set aside by consent.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's acceptance of the complainant's evidence regarding the appellant driving a dump truck at her, resulting in the truck becoming stuck on rocks.

The court rejected the appellant's photographic evidence and found no error in the trial judge's refusal to adjourn proceedings to permit a last-minute s. 11(b) Charter application.

The court also found no impropriety in the appointment or conduct of amicus.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice, arguing that the sentencing judge erred by refusing to grant enhanced credit for 89 days spent in lockdown during his 528 days of pretrial custody.

The appellant relied on the principle from R. v. Duncan that particularly harsh presentence incarceration conditions can provide mitigation beyond the 1.5 credit under s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and upheld the sentencing judge's discretionary finding that the appellant did not experience particularly harsh treatment as required by Duncan.

The appellant appealed his convictions on two counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted murder while using a firearm, arising from a planned drug robbery on July 16, 2005.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of two accomplices with significant credibility issues.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that while the verdicts were not unreasonable, the cumulative effect of errors in the trial judge's final instructions to the jury—particularly regarding post-offence conduct and the failure to adequately address alternative inferences—required a new trial.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his conviction for refusing to comply with a breath demand.

The Superior Court had dismissed his appeal.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the trial judge failed to address the appellant's disorientation and possible concussion following an accident as raising a reasonable doubt, and whether an alleged lie by a police officer provided grounds for leave to appeal.

The court found that the trial judge was clearly aware of the disorientation evidence, having acquitted the appellant on the impaired driving charge, and that any alleged police officer lie had no impact on the conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample.

Leave to appeal was denied.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed in part to strike the victim surcharge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for intimidation of a justice system participant contrary to s. 423.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code and sought leave to appeal his sentence of a suspended sentence with one-year probation.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons and did not properly apply the W.(D.) test for assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons were detailed and adequately addressed the evidence, including the appellant's testimony.

The court also dismissed a motion to set aside victim fine surcharges imposed in a separate matter, finding that the matter was not properly before the court.

The applicant sought leave to appeal his convictions for criminal harassment, uttering threats, and causing a disturbance.

The applicant was convicted at trial and his summary conviction appeal was dismissed.

On this motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, the applicant raised three grounds of appeal characterized as questions of law: alleged undue deference to the trial judge's curtailment of questioning regarding an abuse of process application; alleged error in concluding the applicant abandoned a Charter s. 11(b) application; and alleged error in the trial judge's misstatement of the legal test for threatening.

The Court of Appeal found that the first two grounds did not involve pure questions of law, and the third ground involved mixed fact and law with little significance beyond the specific case.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of attempting to obstruct justice contrary to s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code and breaching a long-term supervision order by failing to obey the law and keep the peace contrary to s. 753.3(1).

He received 18 months' imprisonment, less credit for 68 days of pre-sentence custody.

The sole issue at trial was the reliability of voice identification evidence from the complainant, who testified that the appellant called her and attempted to persuade her not to attend court or to lie if she did.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sought to adduce fresh evidence regarding phone access at the detention centre.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, the fresh evidence application, and refused leave to appeal sentence.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by the trial judge, raising two grounds of appeal: (1) that the trial judge misused evidence of a prohibition order against the appellant; and (2) that the trial judge improperly enhanced the complainant's credibility based on testimony that was not always favourable to her, when such matters were provable by text messages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds of appeal, finding that the trial judge properly instructed herself on bad character evidence and that it was open to the trial judge to consider the complainant's acknowledgements regardless of their form.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed except for the setting aside of the victim fine surcharge.

The appellant appealed his guilty pleas to dangerous driving and failure to comply with conditions of a recognizance, arising from a serious motor vehicle collision involving a police vehicle and a stolen vehicle.

The trial counsel failed to adequately advise the appellant of the immigration consequences of the guilty plea and joint submission on sentence.

The Crown conceded that the appellant demonstrated he was unaware of these consequences.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant established a reasonable possibility that he would not have pled guilty had he known of the immigration consequences, thereby meeting the threshold for setting aside the guilty pleas.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and threatening death following a trial by judge alone and sentenced to two years in custody, less time served.

On appeal, the court found that a breach of solicitor-client privilege occurred during trial when the trial judge questioned defence counsel about why certain matters were not put to the complainant during cross-examination.

Defence counsel, in breach of privilege, confirmed that the appellant's testimony differed from what counsel expected.

The trial judge then used this privileged information in his reasons for judgment to draw an adverse inference against the appellant's credibility.

Although the trial judge stated the inference was not determinative, the Court of Appeal found that the use of privileged information created an appearance of unfairness constituting a miscarriage of justice, regardless of whether it was essential to the conviction.

The appellant pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm, refusing to provide a breath sample, and failing to stop at the scene of an accident.

Counsel presented a joint submission for 40 days' imprisonment.

The trial judge rejected the joint submission after hearing a victim impact statement and the Crown withdrew its support for the submission.

The trial judge refused to allow the appellant to withdraw his guilty plea and imposed a sentence of 12 months and one day.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the guilty plea was uninformed because the appellant did not know the Crown would withdraw its support for the joint submission, and that allowing the plea to stand would constitute a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice on January 16, 2019.

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned after the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre communicated that it would receive the appellant immediately as he continued to serve his sentence.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice on February 5, 2019.

The Court of Appeal identified a mathematical error in the trial judge's calculation of credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appeal was allowed and the appellant was granted an additional 22 days of credit for pre-sentence custody, for a total credit of 33 days.

The appellant appealed his convictions on two counts of assault using a weapon and one count of assault causing bodily harm arising from an altercation at a pizza store.

The trial judge found the appellant used a screwdriver to assault the store owner and employee, and rejected his self-defence claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's excessive interventions during the appellant's testimony undermined the appearance of fairness and resulted in actual unfairness.

The trial judge's pointed cross-examination of the appellant, belittling comments to defence counsel, and persistent challenging of the appellant's account prevented him from presenting his version of events.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence from a trial judgment entered by Justice Peter Bawden of the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant raised concerns about the trial judge's credibility findings in the Notice of Appeal but did not advance these submissions orally.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's credibility assessment.

The appellant also expressed regret about not testifying at trial, but this concern was not raised in the Notice of Appeal and the Court found no basis for appellate intervention.

On the sentence appeal, duty counsel advanced two arguments alleging errors in the reasons for sentence, both of which were rejected by the Court of Appeal.