Avene Derwa

The appellant appealed her three-year sentence (less six months pre-sentence custody credit) imposed following a guilty plea to trafficking in firearms.

The appellant challenged the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 99(2)(a) of the Criminal Code as contrary to s. 12 of the Charter on the basis that it was overly broad and could be grossly disproportionate in certain circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it unnecessary to address the constitutional argument as the three-year sentence was fit and appropriate even without the mandatory minimum, given the serious aggravating factors present.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 13.5 months' imprisonment followed by 2 years' probation for fraud over $5,000.

The appellant had defrauded a family friend and client of $110,000 through a fabricated immigration scheme.

The trial judge found the fraud was planned and involved a breach of trust but lasted only a few days.

The appellant argued that a non-custodial sentence could meet the objectives of denunciation and deterrence, proposing either a suspended sentence or a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered and rejected the non-custodial alternatives and that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant sought judicial interim release pending the hearing of her sentence appeal challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence for weapons trafficking under section 99(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding that while the appeal had arguable merit, it did not have sufficient merit to warrant release under section 679(4)(a), and that the appellant had not established that her detention was not necessary in the public interest under section 679(4)(c).

The appellant was convicted on 16 of 17 charges including exercising control, procuring, receiving material benefit from procuring, sexual assault, robbery, theft under $5,000, fraud under $5,000, uttering threats, and assault.

He was sentenced to 8.5 years imprisonment less 3 years pre-trial custody.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's credibility findings were open on the record, that the similar fact evidence was properly admitted, and that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed and leave to appeal sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was also dismissed.

An appeal from the Ontario Review Board's November 14, 2016 disposition continuing the appellant's detention at a General Forensic Unit and refusing a transfer to another institution.

The appellant raised two issues: (1) whether the Board erred in refusing a second adjournment and dismissing a document disclosure motion, and (2) whether the Board erred in failing to find that the hospital's March 2016 reduction of privileges and implementation of a behaviour intervention plan infringed Charter rights under sections 7 and 9.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the Board's decisions.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm and drug-related offences and his sentence of four and a half years custody.

He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, primarily arguing that trial counsel failed to seek exclusion of evidence obtained during an allegedly unlawful detention and search.

The Court of Appeal found that trial counsel's decision not to pursue a Charter application was reasonable and that no miscarriage of justice occurred.

The court also rejected the appellant's other claims of ineffective assistance regarding disclosure, witness testimony, and counsel's absence on the first day of trial.

Both the conviction appeal and leave to appeal sentence were dismissed.

A 40-year-old offender was sentenced for serious sexual offences committed as a young person between ages 13 and 17.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault involving repeated non-consensual sexual intercourse with his step-sister, who was 8 years old at the onset of the abuse and 13 when she stopped it.

The defence sought a 6-month deferred custody sentence, emphasizing the offender's exemplary life since the offences and familial obligations.

The Crown sought 18 months to 2 years incarceration.

The court imposed 12 months total custody (8 months in custody followed by 4 months community supervision), finding that accountability required incarceration despite the significant passage of time and the offender's rehabilitation.

The Crown brought a mid-trial application to admit an out-of-court hearsay statement of the complainant pursuant to the principled approach to hearsay established in R. v. Khelawon.

The complainant's trial testimony was inconsistent with her earlier statement to police.

The court applied the two-part test requiring the Crown to establish both necessity and threshold reliability on a balance of probabilities.

The court found that necessity was met because the complainant's trial testimony did not support the charges, whereas her prior statement did.

The court also found threshold reliability was established through multiple indicia including the complainant's corroborating testimony in-chief regarding certain incidents, the officer's careful documentation and questioning technique, the spontaneity of the statement, the complainant's clear mental state, and her availability for cross-examination.

The application was granted and the statement was admitted for the truth of its contents.

A young person was charged with repeated sexual assault against his step-sister over a five-year period from 1988 to 1993, when the complainant was between 8 and 13 years old.

The trial involved credibility assessments of the adult complainant testifying about childhood abuse, corroborating testimony from her step-brother regarding an admission by the accused, and the accused's denials.

The court found the complainant and her step-brother credible and rejected the accused's evidence as contrived and self-serving.

The court convicted the accused on all counts, finding the identity of the perpetrator established beyond a reasonable doubt.