Anil K. Kapoor

The appellant was convicted of robbery and unlawful confinement.

During the investigation, police officers subjected the appellant and his co-accused to deliberate, prolonged, and violent beatings to extract confessions.

The trial judge found egregious Charter breaches but refused to grant a stay of proceedings, opting instead to reduce the appellant's sentence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in principle by failing to consider the systemic ramifications of the police misconduct and its impact on the integrity of the justice system.

The Court concluded that the state misconduct was so egregious that carrying the prosecution forward would be offensive to society, warranting a stay of proceedings under the residual category.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing the verdict was unreasonable because he lacked sufficient time to stage the crime scene without pre-planning, which the jury rejected by acquitting him of first degree murder.

He also argued the trial judge erred in refusing to disclose information from a confidential informant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the jury to conclude the staging occurred within the available two-hour window, and upholding the trial judge's application of the innocence at stake test to maintain informant privilege.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and uttering threats, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, rendered inconsistent verdicts, and failed to consider the defence theory of consent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no material errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The Court agreed the sentence was a marked departure from similar cases involving sexual assault and intimate partner violence.

However, the Court dismissed the sentence appeal, concluding it was not in the public interest to incarcerate the offender given his 14 months of strict house arrest, prior bail conditions, and fresh evidence of a serious motor vehicle accident requiring ongoing rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario that set aside his acquittal on three counts of sexual assault and entered convictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge misdirected himself on the objective test for sexual assault.

The Court held that the Court of Appeal properly exercised its power under section 686(4)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code to substitute a conviction, as the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the touching occurred in circumstances of a sexual nature and the appellant would necessarily have been convicted but for the trial judge's error of law.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing phone records evidence and the credibility of a complainant regarding an assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions on the unreliability of the phone records and the credibility of the complainant were open to her and warranted no interference.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of second degree murder, seeking to strike his guilty pleas based on fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed fresh evidence incredulous, contrived, and unworthy of belief.

The Court concluded the pleas were fully informed and voluntary, and that the appellant was manipulative and attempting to deceive the court.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder on three grounds: the admission of drop cloths and a shovel as evidence of planning and deliberation, the use of evidence regarding a gun from a prior home invasion, and the admission of evidence found in his vehicle despite an error in the search warrant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The court found that the physical evidence had sufficient probative value, the gun evidence was properly admitted for motive and identity with appropriate limiting instructions, and the search warrant error was a minor technical breach that did not warrant exclusion of the evidence under the Charter.

The applicant applied for bail pending his appeal from a conviction for second degree murder.

He argued that the trial judge erred in failing to disclose the identity of a confidential police informer and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The court reviewed the grounds of appeal and found them to be arguable but weak.

Applying the public interest test, the court concluded that the interest in enforceability of the murder conviction outweighed the interest in reviewability.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed their convictions.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in foreclosing the appellants from challenging the factual underpinnings of the counselling to commit murder charges for which the appellant Vanderheyden stood convicted.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that the counselling convictions provided a significant boost to the credibility of two unsavoury witnesses.

The court found that the curative proviso could not be applied, as it could not be satisfied that Vanderheyden would not have testified had the trial judge ruled differently.

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

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of second degree murder.

The accused had punched the victim, causing him to fall and hit his head, which resulted in fatal injuries.

The accused also kicked the victim shortly after.

The trial judge limited the Crown's cross-examination of the accused on his prior convictions for crimes of violence, and instructed the jury on self-defence and causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's discretionary ruling on the criminal record.

Although the trial judge erred in her instructions regarding whether the punch and kick constituted a single transaction, the error did not affect the verdict, as the jury clearly found the punch was in self-defence and the medical evidence did not support the kick as a contributing cause of death.

The member, a registered nurse, was found guilty of professional misconduct for failing to report multiple criminal convictions to the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The convictions included mischief over $5,000, criminal harassment, and breaches of undertaking and recognizance, arising from his conduct towards two former partners.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a five-month suspension, and strict conditions on his certificate of registration, including mandatory counselling for stress and anger management.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against a Registered Practical Nurse for misappropriating a vial of Hydromorphone and failing to document medication administration on 35 occasions.

The hearing proceeded in the member's absence.

The Discipline Committee found the allegations proven on a balance of probabilities, relying on clear and convincing evidence including testimony from the clinical manager and narcotic control records.

The member's conduct was found to be disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, a one-month suspension, and practice monitoring conditions upon reinstatement.

The Member, a Director of Occupational Health and Infection Control, faced allegations of professional misconduct for disclosing the names of 14 staff members who had not received an influenza vaccination in an email to other staff, and for directing a profanity at a co-worker during a subsequent staff meeting.

The Member admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain confidentiality and engaging in unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and exercising its discretion not to publish the Member's name due to mitigating factors including her retirement, serious medical condition, and remorse.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against the Member for practising while her registration was suspended, pre-pouring medications, and failing to notify her employer of her suspension.

The Member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member had worked as a Registered Practical Nurse while suspended, pre-poured medications for a subsequent shift, and failed to inform her employer of her suspension.

Allegations regarding failing to check pre-poured medications and administering 'prn' medications without assessment were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's Certificate of Registration, emphasizing the serious breach of public trust and the Member's ungovernability.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for claiming and collecting sick pay from one employer while working shifts at another hospital.

The Member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct that would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered the Member to appear for a reprimand and pay a $1,000 fine.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct before the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The allegations included falsifying timesheets, using an unsafe makeshift pacifier for a newborn, and providing false information on an employment application.

The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The panel found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a Joint Submission as to Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a 30-day suspension, and conditions on her certificate of registration including an ethics course and practice consultations.

The member faced allegations of professional misconduct for administering 25mg of morphine concentrate instead of the ordered 5mg to a palliative care resident on two occasions.

The member admitted to the allegations and an Agreed Statement of Facts was presented.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain the standards of the profession.

The panel accepted a Joint Submission as to Penalty, ordering an oral reprimand and amending the member's undertaking to prohibit the administration of all medications until the successful completion of an approved medication administration course.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation.

The predicate offences occurred before the 1997 Criminal Code amendments introducing the Long Term Offender (LTO) designation.

At the sentencing hearing, the parties and the trial judge proceeded on the basis that the LTO designation did not apply as a matter of law.

The trial judge found the appellant to be a dangerous offender without properly considering the LTO criteria.

The Court of Appeal held that this was an error in law, as it is possible to meet the criteria for both designations, and the LTO criteria cannot be eliminated simply because the dangerous offender criteria are met.

The appeal was allowed, the dangerous offender designation was set aside, and a new sentencing hearing was ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions on the basis of inconsistent verdicts.

He had admitted participation in all charged offences but relied on the defences of duress and necessity, which applied equally to all crimes as part of a single transaction.

The Court of Appeal found that the jury must have reached an unjustifiable compromise, allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and entered acquittals.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of seven bank robberies based on a videotaped confession, eyewitness identification, and circumstantial evidence.

On appeal, he argued that his videotaped statement was inadmissible because police did not reiterate his right to counsel when questioning shifted to other robberies, that the jury was inadequately instructed on photo lineups, that the trial judge's interventions caused a miscarriage of justice, and that the jury was not told to consider evidence for each count separately.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant understood his jeopardy and right to counsel, and dismissed the first three grounds.

While the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury to consider the identification evidence separately for each count, the Court applied the curative proviso because the videotaped confession provided overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The appeal was dismissed.