Bryan Badali

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.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of misconduct and ordering his dismissal, as well as the decision to prospectively lift the automatic stay of penalty.

The officer had requested an adjournment for medical reasons, which was denied.

His counsel then withdrew, and the hearing proceeded in his absence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the adjournment was properly denied, proceeding in absentia without confirming the officer had notice or intended to retain new counsel was procedurally unfair.

The Commission also found the Hearing Officer erred in lifting the stay of penalty by failing to consider the merits of the appeal and the prejudice to the officer.

The findings of misconduct were quashed, a new hearing was ordered, and the stay of penalty was restored.

The applicant sought judicial review of an oral caution imposed by the College of Pharmacists Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee for overbilling at five pharmacies.

The applicant argued the caution was punitive rather than remedial, given his prior discipline for similar conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decision reasonable because the current conduct involved significantly more money, more pharmacies, and a different time period, thereby posing a greater risk to the public and demonstrating a need for further remediation.

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.

The appellant, Jeffrey Visscher, appealed his convictions for assault and breaking and entering.

He abandoned the ground of appeal regarding unreasonable verdicts and proceeded solely on the ground that the trial judge made a legal error in assessing the credibility of the complainant and another witness.

The Court of Appeal found no such legal error and dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions.

The appellant, Gary Austin, was convicted of fraud and theft based on circumstantial evidence, where he received over $165,000 from fraudulent cheques drafted by a general manager of a company.

Austin appealed, arguing the trial judge misapplied the principles from R. v. Villaroman regarding circumstantial evidence and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge, when read as a whole, correctly applied the Villaroman standard by concluding that guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The court also found the reasons sufficient for appellate review, noting that speculative inferences of innocence, contrary to human experience, do not constitute reasonable doubt.

The appellant sought to appeal a sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had properly applied legal principles and that the imposed short period of incarceration was not unfit.

The court noted the trial judge's adherence to the principle of restraint and consideration of significant mitigating factors, including the appellant's addiction.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

This case involves a criminal trial where the accused, Dwight Whittaker, faced charges related to offences against peace officers.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

During the trial, a Charter motion was heard seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging violations of the accused's s. 7 and 12 rights.

The court found that while the accused was guilty of the charges arising from the courtroom incident, the conduct of a court officer, Officer Dicks, in the holding cells prior to the courtroom incident was unlawful and egregious, constituting clear violations of the accused's s. 7 rights.

Specifically, Officer Dicks used excessive force, including punching the accused and standing on him, which was deemed humiliating and unlawful.

Considering the egregious nature of the Charter violations and the racial context (Black accused, White officer), the court found that a stay of proceedings was the only appropriate remedy to distance the administration of justice from such conduct.

All charges were stayed.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of a youth charged with impaired driving causing death.

The trial judge had excluded evidence of the youth's statements to a paramedic, breath samples, and blood samples, finding multiple breaches of section 8 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the youth had a reasonable expectation of privacy during a medical assessment in an ambulance, and that the police officer's breath demand lacked subjective grounds.

The Court also agreed that the subsequent breath demand by a technician was tainted by the initial breach, and that the search warrant for hospital records was invalid.

The exclusion of evidence under section 24(2) was upheld due to the seriousness of the police misconduct.

Anthony Ha pleaded guilty to assault and distributing intimate images.

The victim, his former intimate partner, suffered physical and psychological harm.

The Crown sought five months jail and probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the calculated nature of distributing intimate images for revenge, breach of trust, and significant victim impact.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, no prior record, and counselling.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence for such serious offences, particularly those involving intimate partner violence and non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

The appellant, a police constable, appealed the findings of guilt for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and insubordination, as well as the penalty of dismissal imposed by a hearing officer.

The misconduct involved unauthorized police database queries of individuals connected to his brother's criminal investigation, failure to disclose personal connections to persons of interest in a firearms investigation, and insubordination during a compelled interview.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing officer's factual conclusions reasonable, the admission of evidence from a Criminal Code production order lawful, and the penalty of dismissal appropriate given the serious and repeated nature of the misconduct.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of impaired operation and excess blood alcohol.

The trial judge had found breaches of the respondent's s.10(a) and s.10(b) Charter rights, leading to the exclusion of breath samples and acquittal.

The appeal court found no s.10(a) breach but upheld the trial judge's finding of a s.10(b) Charter breach, agreeing with the assessment of "flagrant disrespect" by the police.

Consequently, the appeal court affirmed the trial judge's decision to exclude the breath sample evidence under s.24(2) of the Charter and upheld the acquittal.

The applicant, Ross Jacko, sought bail pending appeal after being convicted of assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

The application was brought under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code.

While the Crown conceded the appeal was not frivolous, the court found the proposed release plan, involving two sureties (mother and friend) and strict terms, insufficient to address flight risk and public safety concerns.

Given the applicant's extensive criminal record, history of violent offences, and prior bail breaches, the court was not satisfied he would surrender or that his detention was unnecessary in the public interest.

The application was dismissed, with an order to expedite the appeal hearing.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought an application to exclude DNA and fingerprint evidence, arguing that police violated his s. 8 Charter rights by searching a public genetic genealogy database (GEDmatch) and seizing cast-off DNA without judicial authorization.

The court dismissed the application, finding the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the public database search results.

Furthermore, applying horizontal stare decisis, the court held it was bound by prior decisions establishing that the seizure of discarded items for DNA analysis does not violate s. 8.

The appellants, convicted of aggravated assault, appealed both their convictions and their 15-month custodial sentences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's assessment of causation of injuries.

However, the court granted leave to appeal the sentences, concluding that the trial judge erred in principle by automatically ruling out a conditional sentence due to the violence involved and by failing to adequately weigh all relevant sentencing objectives, including restraint and rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal substituted the custodial sentences with 15-month conditional sentences, including a period of house arrest, while maintaining probation and ancillary orders.

The applicants, police officers who took leaves of absence to serve as executives on the Ontario Provincial Police Association, sought an interim stay of a misconduct hearing pending their application for judicial review.

They argued the Adjudicator erred in finding they were still 'police officers' subject to discipline under the Police Services Act while on leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while there may be a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the misconduct proceedings to continue without further delay.

This decision addresses two pre-trial applications in a criminal case involving an internet luring charge.

The accused sought to exclude electronic messages (Facebook) on the basis of an unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown sought to admit a statement made by the accused to the investigating officer, arguing its voluntariness.

The court found that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the electronic communications, and the warrantless search by police was a serious Charter infringement, leading to the exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court also found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's statement was voluntary, citing inadequate cautioning and record-keeping by the police, rendering the statement inadmissible.

The Crown applied under s. 683(5) of the Criminal Code to suspend two conditional sentence orders (CSOs) imposed on the respondents, who were convicted of failing to provide necessaries of life.

The Crown argued that serving the CSOs before the appeal hearing would prejudice its sentence appeal, which sought penitentiary sentences.

The respondents opposed, arguing the Crown had not shown merit and that suspension was not in the interests of justice.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding that the "interests of justice" did not favour suspending the CSOs, noting that re-incarceration after a sentence is served is not inevitable and that the impact of served house arrest conditions could be considered on appeal.

The appellant, Philip Grandine, appealed his conviction for manslaughter and his 15-year sentence in the drowning death of his wife, Karissa Grandine.

This was his second trial, the first conviction having been overturned.

The appeal raised three grounds against conviction: error in leaving a criminal negligence by omission theory of liability to the jury without evidentiary basis, error in refusing to exclude evidence based on issue estoppel (computer searches for "autopsy"), and inadequate jury instruction on the use of the appellant's out-of-court statements.

The appellant also argued the sentence was excessive and based on an unproven aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding sufficient evidentiary basis for the criminal negligence theory, no issue estoppel error, and adequate jury instructions.

The court also found the sentence was fit and reasonable, rejecting the "almost murder" characterization argument and the breach of trust argument.