Brian C. Eberdt

The appellant appealed a life sentence, arguing it violated the parity principle under s. 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code by departing from the established range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly considered the range but was justified in departing from it due to the extraordinary and tragic circumstances of the offence and the appellant's appalling criminal history.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board's finding that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable.

Alternatively, he argued the Board erred in failing to grant a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the Board's conclusion regarding the threat to public safety.

The Court also held that a conditional discharge was unavailable because the appellant required supervised housing approved by the person in charge.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for an unprovoked and brutal aggravated assault, arguing it was manifestly unfit and failed to give proper effect to denunciation and deterrence.

The sentencing judge had effectively imposed a low penitentiary sentence after giving credit for pre-sentence custody, emphasizing the principle of rehabilitation to give the respondent one last chance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion regarding the respondent's rehabilitative prospects and seeing no basis for appellate intervention.

The accused was charged with four counts of assault and one count of uttering a threat to cause death in relation to his former wife.

The court dismissed all assault counts by agreement of counsel.

The court also dismissed the uttering a threat charge, finding that the complainant's evidence was vague and lacked essential detail regarding the exact wording of the alleged threat.

The court noted the accused was highly intoxicated at the time and found the complainant had a potential motive to exaggerate her account in order to have the accused removed from the house.

All charges were dismissed as not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding him $1,000 for injuries sustained in a bar fight.

The Board had reduced the compensation under s. 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act due to the appellant's criminal lifestyle, and under s. 17(2) for his failure to cooperate with police.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the Board erred in law by applying s. 17(1) without establishing a nexus between the appellant's conduct and his injuries.

The matter was remitted to the Board to reconsider the compensation amount based solely on the s. 17(2) finding.

At his new trial for manslaughter, the accused sought to adduce evidence of two prior violent attacks by the deceased against him to support his claim of self-defence.

The Crown did not oppose this but sought to adduce reply evidence of the accused's prior convictions for violence.

The court ruled that the accused could adduce the evidence of the deceased's prior violence, but doing so would open the door for the Crown to adduce evidence of the accused's disposition for violence to ensure the jury had a balanced picture of the parties' respective dispositions for aggression.