Bryan Badali

The appellant was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 following a trial by judge and jury, and was sentenced to five and one-half years' imprisonment.

She appealed her conviction on four grounds: that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that character could not be considered; that the trial judge erred in allowing the jury to consider smaller quantities of a different drug; that the trial judge failed to provide a corrective instruction after the Crown's closing address; and that the trial judge erred in his instruction regarding the mistake of fact defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and also dismissed the leave to appeal sentence application.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered Lisa Griffiths’s appeal from her conviction and sentence for multiple counts of breaking and entering and attempted break and enter.

The court dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by treating Griffiths’s decision to go to trial as a lack of remorse and by increasing her sentence on that basis.

The court substituted a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment and two years’ probation, but declined to impose a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals of R.V.A., who was found guilty of repeatedly sexually abusing his daughter between the ages of 12 and 16.

The court addressed the trial judge’s reliance on an adoptive admission, the treatment of the stepmother’s evidence, and the rejection of the appellant’s testimony.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the nine-year sentence fit despite a possible error regarding aggravating factors.

The appellant, J.D., appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault and the sentence imposed.

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge misapprehended the appellant’s evidence, erred in applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework, or committed palpable and overriding error in rejecting the appellant’s testimony.

The court found that the trial judge materially misapprehended aspects of the appellant’s evidence, particularly regarding who suggested returning to the trailer and the analogy of “narcolepsy” for the appellant’s fatigue.

These misapprehensions were central to the credibility assessment and warranted a new trial.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as moot.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Aleksandr Shaporov’s conviction and sentence appeals for possessing and accessing child pornography.

The court addressed arguments regarding delay under section 11(b) of the Charter, the sufficiency and candour of the search warrant ITO under section 8, and alleged errors in the trial judge’s handling of the burden of proof and evidence.

The court found that, even after correcting for double-counted and misattributed periods of delay, the case’s complexity justified the time taken.

The trial judge’s findings on the ITO’s sufficiency and candour were upheld, as were his credibility findings and sentencing approach.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals of Habibullah Daniel Ahmadi, who was convicted of second degree murder for the fatal assault of Sara Anne Widholm.

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge erred in using Ahmadi’s out-of-court statements as circumstantial evidence of guilt, failed to consider critical evidence on intent, and improperly relied on after-the-fact conduct.

The Court found no legal error in the trial judge’s treatment of the evidence, including the assessment of intoxication and intent, and upheld the 13-year parole ineligibility period.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed P.P.'s appeal from convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault, finding that the trial judge erred in admitting irrelevant and prejudicial letters written years before the alleged offences and in permitting evidence of privileged marital communications without a valid waiver.

The cumulative effect of these errors undermined the credibility assessment of the defence and required a new trial.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment after shooting an intruder outside his home.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in leaving manslaughter with the jury, and challenged the jury instructions on self-defence and out-of-court statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding an air of reality to manslaughter based on the appellant's testimony and upholding the jury instructions.

On the sentence appeal, fresh evidence revealed the trial judge misspoke and intended to impose a six-year sentence.

The Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge erred in failing to correct his mistake immediately, and sentenced the appellant afresh to six years' imprisonment.

This penalty decision follows a finding of contempt against Mark Mendl, former counsel to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), for failing to comply with a court order to produce records and information regarding $3.7 million in union funds.

The court reviews the history of non-compliance, the steps taken by Mendl to eventually purge his contempt, and the aggravating and mitigating factors, including Mendl’s substance abuse and subsequent cooperation.

The court considers the purposes of civil contempt penalties, relevant case law, and the impact of Mendl’s suspension from legal practice.

Ultimately, the court imposes no further penalty, finding that Mendl’s incarceration, suspension, and agreement to pay costs suffice.

The applicant, having been convicted of drug trafficking and weapons offences and sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment, applied for bail pending appeal.

The Crown opposed bail on the public interest ground, citing the seriousness of the fentanyl trafficking offences.

The motion judge granted bail, finding that the applicant was not a flight or safety risk, and that his appeal grounds—alleging the trial judge erred in the s. 24(2) Charter analysis by failing to consider s. 8 and s. 10 breaches holistically—were of moderate strength.

Balancing the reviewability and enforceability interests, the court concluded that public confidence in the administration of justice favoured release.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' action and refer the dispute to arbitration in Dubai, relying on the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017.

The dispute involved a shareholding agreement for a radiology clinic in Dubai, which contained an arbitration clause, and a related one-page guarantee document.

The court found that the claims arguably fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the arbitrator should determine their own jurisdiction.

The motion was granted and the action was stayed.

This Crown appeal addresses the timeframe within which an initial refusal to provide a roadside breath sample (ASD demand) can be retracted before constituting a criminal offence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario reconciled the "same transaction" principle from R. v. Domik with the "immediately" requirement of the Criminal Code s. 320.27(1)(b).

The court held that Domik applies to ASD demands, but the "same transaction" window is limited by the time police can lawfully obtain a sample "immediately," considering operational time and unusual circumstances, as interpreted by R. v. Breault.

The trial and summary conviction appeal judges erred in law by not properly applying these constraints.

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

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges including sexual assault and robbery.

The trial judge had found reasonable doubt due to credibility issues with both the complainant and the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by relying on stereotypical reasoning about how a sexual assault victim should behave and by failing to properly consider confirmatory evidence.

These errors materially affected the assessment of the complainant's credibility.

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

Paramedics Christopher Marchant and Steven Snively were convicted of failing to provide the necessaries of life to a shooting victim.

They appealed their convictions, arguing a flawed analytical approach, insufficient/contradictory reasons, and misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge.

The Crown sought leave to appeal their 18-month conditional sentences, requesting custodial terms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeals and the Crown's sentence appeals, upholding the trial judge's findings that the paramedics' actions constituted a marked departure from the standard of care and that the conditional sentences were fit.

The appellant, Peter Knelsen, appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and child luring.

The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in admitting text messages between the appellant and the complainant, which the trial judge found were obtained in violation of the appellant's s. 8 Charter rights but admitted under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in concluding the appellant had standing to assert his s. 8 rights, as he had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages exchanged with the 15-year-old complainant, especially given the messages constituted the offence of child luring.

The appellant, Shaun Rootenberg, appealed his conviction for fraud over $5,000 and his six-year sentence.

The conviction appeal raised two issues: the unreasonableness of the verdict regarding the dishonest diversion of funds, and the trial judge's refusal to grant a stay of proceedings due to alleged section 8 Charter violations from strip searches during pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds of appeal, finding the fraud conviction overwhelmingly supported by evidence and no Charter breach in the strip searches, or if there was, it did not warrant a stay.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the six-year sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the appellant's prior fraud convictions and the devastating impact on the complainant.

The appellant, Qiao Zeng, appealed his conviction for second-degree murder.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's jury instructions were confusing and inadequate, particularly regarding the two distinct routes to liability (aiding a planned murder and common intention in a kidnapping resulting in death) and the evidence relevant to each.

The blending of these routes and the lack of clear delineation between them for the appellant and co-accused likely confused the jury and may have led to a compromise verdict.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial on the charge of second-degree murder.

The appellant, Waseem Khan, was convicted of child luring and communicating for the purpose of obtaining sexual services from a person under 18.

He appealed his convictions, arguing errors in the trial judge's mens rea analysis and the dismissal of his abuse of process application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the mens rea ground, finding the trial judge correctly applied the Morrison framework.

However, the court allowed the appeal on the abuse of process ground, concluding the trial judge erred in her interpretation of the "genuine offer" element under s. 286.4 of the Criminal Code.

Consequently, the convictions were vacated, findings of guilt upheld, and a new trial ordered solely to complete the abuse of process application.

Michael LeBlanc appealed his second-degree murder conviction, arguing the trial judge erred by not giving alternative jury directions on the partial defence of provocation and a rolled-up manslaughter charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality for either defence.

For provocation, the court determined the "sudden" element was not met as the appellant was prepared for the threat.

For manslaughter, the brutal nature of the attack indicated an intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, leaving no realistic scope for a lesser verdict.

The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, having claimed self-defence at trial.

The trial judge rejected the self-defence claim, finding the appellant was the aggressor.

The appellant appealed the conviction, alleging legal errors in the application of self-defence provisions under s. 34 of the Criminal Code and a failure to give adequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's holistic examination of the self-defence claim, concluding that the appellant armed himself and initiated the confrontation with an aggressive intent, not for self-defence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was abandoned.