Avene Derwa

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a robbery charge.

At trial, the Crown had requested a conviction for the lesser included offence of assault.

The trial judge concluded that because the information did not particularize the manner in which the robbery was alleged to have been committed, the accused could not be convicted of assault.

The Court of Appeal found this was an error of law.

However, because the trial judge did not make the factual findings necessary to support a finding of guilt for assault, a substituted conviction was not available.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Crown failed to establish with a reasonable degree of certainty that the verdict would not necessarily have been the same had the error not been made.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual interference, seeking to strike his guilty plea on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant argued his plea was not voluntary or fully informed due to inadequate legal advice regarding the use of facts on sentencing, the status of a co-accused, and the Crown's disclosure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the plea was voluntary, fully informed, and that trial counsel provided effective assistance.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was within the appropriate range.

The applicant sought leave to appeal under s. 839 of the Criminal Code from a summary conviction appeal judge's decision overturning a stay of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, finding that the 10 months of institutional delay was within the Morin guidelines for a two-day impaired driving trial and did not warrant granting leave.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, relying on an alibi.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable despite the alibi evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing credibility and resolving inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the W.D. formula or her reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence over the appellant's.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed sentence after the sentencing judge declined to follow a joint submission of four months' imprisonment and instead imposed a one-year sentence for break and enter of a residence and possession of stolen property.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred in principle by mischaracterizing those offences as crimes of violence.

Considering the appellant's rehabilitative potential and fresh evidence showing rehabilitation was being realized, the court concluded there was no value in re-incarceration.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was varied to time served, equivalent to four months.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder, arguing that the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding aiding and abetting, the mens rea for murder, and manslaughter.

The appellant also challenged the exclusion of hearsay statements by a co-accused and the admission of intercepted conversations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury instructions, read as a whole, adequately conveyed the essential issues and that any errors were harmless.

The court also upheld the evidentiary rulings, concluding that the hearsay statements lacked reliability and necessity, and the intercepted conversations were relevant to the Crown's theory without being unduly prejudicial.

The respondent corporation pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death after a swing stage collapsed at a construction site, killing four workers.

The sentencing judge imposed a fine of $200,000, relying on the range of fines under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the corporation's ability to pay.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the sentencing judge erred by relying on regulatory fine ranges that do not reflect the higher moral blameworthiness of criminal negligence, and by treating the corporation's ability to pay as a statutory prerequisite.

The Court increased the fine to $750,000 to properly reflect the gravity of the offence and the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm after striking a pedestrian in a parking lot.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to conduct a meaningful analysis of the mens rea component of the offence, specifically whether his conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge conflated the actus reus and mens rea by inferring fault simply from the dangerous manner of driving without assessing all circumstances.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a loaded prohibited weapon and his sentence of 3.5 years' imprisonment.

He argued that his takedown and search by police breached his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the police lawfully exercised their common law power of investigative detention in a volatile situation involving a firearm.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found the trial judge erred in denying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody merely because the appellant pursued a weak Charter motion.

The Court granted enhanced credit at a ratio of 1.5:1 due to harsh remand conditions and ineligibility for remission, reducing the remaining sentence.

The constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence was deemed irrelevant as the 3.5-year sentence was otherwise fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the placement of fingerprints due to a mistaken submission by Crown counsel.

The Court of Appeal found this misapprehension was critical to the conviction.

However, the Court rejected the argument that the verdict was unreasonable.

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

The Crown appealed acquittals on sexual assault and indecent assault charges arising from historical child abuse allegations.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by treating mere opportunity for indirect contact as giving rise to an air of reality to collusion, and by misanalyzing the probative value and prejudicial effect of the proposed similar fact evidence.

Applying the similar fact evidence framework, the court held the judge adopted an impermissibly formulaic comparison of similarities and dissimilarities and overstated reasoning prejudice in a judge-alone trial.

The errors materially affected the acquittal, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for threatening death, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board granting him a conditional discharge rather than an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued he did not pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded based on expert evidence that the appellant would stop his medication if unsupervised, quickly decompensate, and pose a significant risk of harm to the public.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 months' incarceration for domestic assault and a concurrent three months for breaching probation.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by rejecting a joint submission and failing to consider the 'jump' principle.

The Court of Appeal found it was not a joint submission case but agreed the sentencing judge erred by significantly exceeding the Crown's proposed sentence without giving counsel an opportunity to make submissions, and by failing to allow the appellant to speak before sentencing.

The Court varied the sentence to 12 months' imprisonment for the assault and three months concurrent for the breach, followed by three years' probation.

The applicant sought leave to appeal under s. 839(1)(a) of the Criminal Code from a summary conviction appeal court decision dismissing his appeal from an assault conviction.

The sole issue raised was whether the trial judge erred in dismissing an application for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, applying the test from R. v. R.(R.), finding that the proposed grounds of appeal lacked significance to the general administration of justice and the merits of the appeal were not very strong.

The applicant's sentence of a conditional discharge and probation did not constitute a significant deprivation of liberty warranting an exception.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.

Amicus curiae and the hospital argued the Board erred by imposing a 24-hour supervision requirement without canvassing the parties, and by denying overnight visits.

The Court of Appeal agreed the Board should have canvassed the parties regarding the supervision requirement, which was overly restrictive.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, amending the disposition to remove the '24 hours a day' supervision requirement, but upheld the Board's decision to deny overnight passes.