Boris Bytensky

The Crown appealed an order staying nine charges of fraud over $5,000 against the respondent due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The charges arose from alleged misrepresentations of a publicly traded company's financial affairs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's assessment of the inherent time requirements and his allocation of institutional delay.

The Court found no error in the application judge's conclusion that the Crown's accommodation of co-accused counsels' schedules contributed to the unreasonable delay, and dismissed the appeal.

The 18-year-old appellant appealed his nine-year sentence for a brutal robbery of an elderly store clerk.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the sentence was just outside the range established in similar cases, particularly R. v. Borde.

The majority reduced the sentence to six years (effective eight years with pre-trial custody) to better reflect the principle of parity and the appellant's potential for rehabilitation.

MacPherson J.A. dissented, finding no error in the trial judge's sentence.

The appellant appealed from an order dismissing an application for certiorari to quash an order of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that on the facts, it was not an appropriate case to revisit the test in Mezzo.

The court concluded that under any test, there was sufficient evidence for the case to go to the jury.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault and two counts of administering a stupefying substance.

He argued the verdicts were unreasonable, the trial judge misapprehended evidence, and the trial judge erred in relying on the complainants' conservative sexual nature to assess consent.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's factual findings were supported by the evidence, including expert toxicological testimony that the complainants' symptoms were not caused by alcohol alone.

The court concluded the complainants were drugged and rendered unconscious, making them incapable of consenting to sexual activity.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in finding no section 8 Charter violation regarding the search of his motor vehicle and in failing to exclude the discovered handgun under section 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the search was a lawful search incident to arrest.

Furthermore, applying the Collins factors, the Court agreed that the admission of the non-conscriptive evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the reduced expectation of privacy in a vehicle and the seriousness of the firearms offences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant's appeal was dismissed as abandoned after he failed to appear at purge court and failed to provide the required transcripts.

The appellant subsequently appeared and requested that the matter be listed for a further hearing to consider rescinding the dismissal order.

The Court of Appeal heard submissions from the appellant's counsel but found no basis to rescind the order, noting the missed deadline for providing the transcript.

The appeal remained dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his conviction for three counts of assault causing bodily harm by the discharge of a firearm arising from a nightclub shooting.

At trial, the primary defence was identity, but on appeal, the appellant solely argued the issue of self-defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that based on the trial judge's findings of fact, the defence of self-defence under sections 34(2) or 37 of the Criminal Code could not assist the appellant.

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

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to time served.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a default judgment of nearly $50,000.

The appellant argued he was under a disability when served with the statement of claim and that the default judgment should be set aside under Rule 19.08(2).

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the appellant was not under a disability at the time he was noted in default, his medical condition provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to defend the action.

The default judgment was set aside to allow the appellant to present a triable defence on the merits.

The appellant sought prerogative writ relief to prohibit a Superior Court judge from proceeding with sentencing, arguing the judge lacked jurisdiction to order a psychiatric assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that prerogative writ relief does not lie against a Superior Court judge's decision absent a constitutional violation.

The Court further noted the application was an improper attempt to circumvent the rule against interlocutory appeals in criminal trials.

The matter was remitted for sentencing.