Charles William Hourigan

The appellant, Shane Sureskumar, appealed his convictions for identity theft, attempted fraud over $5,000, fraud over $5,000, and fraudulent possession of credit card data, and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The convictions stemmed from his actions as a bank teller accessing client data and attempting/executing fraudulent transfers.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's findings on a s. 8 Charter breach regarding a search incident to arrest, the s. 24(2) exclusion of evidence, and the validity of a search warrant for his cell phone.

The appellant also argued the trial judge erred in not imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding a s. 8 breach but upholding the admission of evidence under s. 24(2) due to good faith and discoverability, and affirming the cell phone warrant.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed, as the trial judge properly considered and rejected a conditional sentence, weighing aggravating factors (breach of trust, quantum, sophistication, greed) against modest mitigating factors (youthful first-time offender, no loss).

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for past offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that ordered her detention in custody and rehabilitation at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

Previously, she had been on a conditional discharge but exhibited declining mental stability and inconsistent attendance at appointments.

Despite recommendations from her physician, hospital counsel, and the Crown for a continued conditional discharge, the ORB found she posed a significant public safety threat due to marked deterioration in her stability and past threatening behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the ORB's decision as reasonable, emphasizing the ORB's expertise and the need to consider future treatment beyond mere reattendance mechanisms.

The appellant appealed from a conviction for sexual assault and the imposed sentence.

The conviction appeal argued that the trial judge misapprehended defence evidence regarding sleeping arrangements and erred in the authentication of photographs.

The sentence appeal challenged the trial judge's consideration of a conditional sentence in light of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal precedents concerning sexual assault against children.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no material misapprehension of evidence and no error in principle in sentencing.

The appellant, R.K., appealed his conviction for sexual interference and an eight-year sentence.

The appeal raised nine grounds, including alleged errors in refusing production of the complainant's diary, improper use of the diary to enhance credibility, misapprehension of evidence, improper cross-examination on bad acts, overvaluing demeanour, improper corroboration by peripheral details, improper reliance on lack of motive to fabricate, and uneven scrutiny of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding both the conviction and the sentence, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and sentencing decision to be sound.

The appellant, convicted of first-degree murder, appealed the trial judge's decision not to exclude computer evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, despite a s. 8 breach.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis, finding no error in the balancing of the Grant factors.

The court affirmed that the breach was not particularly serious, its impact limited, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits was high, especially given the evidence's probative value for the first-degree murder conviction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown sought leave to appeal the nine-month imprisonment sentence and three years probation imposed on the respondent for assault causing bodily harm and uttering a threat.

The Crown argued the sentencing judge erred in principle by not properly considering denunciation and deterrence, and that the sentence was unfit.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and concluding the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, despite being at the lower end for the offence.

The applicant, convicted of sexual exploitation and sentenced to 3.5 years, sought bail pending sentence appeal, leave to appeal sentence, and a stay of the SOIRA order.

The court dismissed the bail application, finding the appeal lacked sufficient merit to cause unnecessary hardship if detained.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted as it was not opposed and not frivolous.

The application for a stay of the SOIRA order was adjourned to the panel hearing the sentence appeal, as the jurisdiction of a single judge to grant such a stay was an open question.

The applicant, convicted of drug possession and trafficking and sentenced to 34 months' incarceration, sought bail pending appeal.

The Crown opposed the application on grounds of public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice, pursuant to s. 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code.

While the court found the applicant met the public safety onus, it noted residual concerns due to his recent criminal history involving firearms and disregard for previous release conditions.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, concluding that the serious nature of the drug offences, the substantial sentence, and the grounds of appeal not clearly surpassing the "not frivolous" standard, meant that releasing the applicant would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

C.H. appealed convictions for mischief under $5000, uttering threats, common assault, and sexual assault committed against his former fiancée.

The appeal raised several grounds, including the trial judge's treatment of character evidence, application of the rule in R. v. W.(D.), evaluation of motive and delay in reporting, treatment of exculpatory evidence for sexual assault, and misuse of a prior consistent statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in most grounds.

While acknowledging an error in the trial judge's hypothetical comment on exculpatory evidence for sexual assault and the misuse of a prior consistent statement, the court concluded these errors did not contribute to the convictions or warrant setting them aside.

The appellant, 9383859 Canada Ltd., failed to comply with orders to post security for costs for two groups of respondents (the Ramesh Respondents and the Saeed Respondents).

These respondents brought motions under Rule 61.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the appeal.

The court denied the appellant's request for an adjournment and dismissed the appeals, finding no valid excuse for non-compliance and that the original security for costs orders were properly made due to the appellant's insufficient assets and weak grounds of appeal.

The court declined to award costs personally against Sandeep Singh, the appellant's sole shareholder and director, finding his litigation strategy did not amount to an abuse of process.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for serious firearms and drug offences, including possession of a prohibited firearm, pointing a firearm, and cocaine trafficking.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by misunderstanding the "true crime" characterization of the offences and by misapprehending mitigating factors.

The court emphasized that possession of a loaded handgun is a serious offence normally attracting a penitentiary term, and the mitigating factors in this case were not strong enough to warrant a conditional sentence.

The appeal was allowed, the original sentences were set aside, and a total effective sentence of four and one-half years of imprisonment was imposed.

The applicant, J.C., sought bail pending appeal after being convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and accessing child pornography, and sentenced to 6.5 years' imprisonment.

The court applied the three-part test under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code: whether the appeal is frivolous, whether the applicant will surrender into custody, and whether detention is necessary in the public interest.

While the appeal was deemed not frivolous and the surrender condition met, the court found that the public confidence ground was engaged due to the gravity of the offences and the lengthy sentence.

The applicant's grounds of appeal were assessed as weak, and the enforceability considerations strongly outweighed the reviewability factors.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and making sexually explicit materials available to a child.

The appeal challenged these convictions on grounds of the trial judge's misapprehension of the complainant's evidence regarding her mother's presence during the alleged sexual touching, and the sufficiency of the trial judge's reasons.

The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference and ordering a new trial on those counts, finding that the trial judge had materially misapprehended key evidence and provided insufficient reasons.

However, the conviction for making sexually explicit material available was upheld.

The dissenting judge would have dismissed the entire appeal, arguing that the trial judge correctly applied the common sense approach to child witnesses and that reasons were sufficient.

The appellant, a young person, appealed convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the conviction appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient as they did not provide an adequate pathway to support the convictions, particularly regarding the appellant's role as a party to the offences.

The trial judge's instruction on party liability under section 21 of the Criminal Code was found to be erroneous, and the reasons failed to specify how the appellant aided or abetted the commission of the offences.

The appellant, D.G., appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The trial judge had found significant credibility issues with the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies and missing journals, but still convicted.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons inadequate for failing to explain how he could believe the complainant's evidence despite these identified credibility problems.

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

The appellant, Mostafa Alkhalil, appealed his conviction for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, and sought leave to appeal his six-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.

The court found no misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge regarding the victim's testimony.

It affirmed that the trial judge correctly considered the appellant's creation of an expectation of trust and the victim's lack of consent as aggravating factors.

The sentence was deemed proportionate and consistent with sentencing principles for serious sexual offences involving vulnerable victims.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, break and enter, and other offences.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing exculpatory eyewitness identification evidence, accepting the testimony of a witness to whom he confessed, and dismissing a lost evidence application regarding a glove and mitten.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the identification evidence, deferring to the credibility findings regarding the confession, and upholding the factual findings on the lost evidence application.

The appellant sought leave to appeal an 8.5-year sentence for five counts of driving while disqualified.

The appellant had a lengthy criminal record, including numerous prior driving offences and a previous 10-year sentence for criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

The current offences were committed while the appellant was on parole and subject to multiple driving prohibitions, including a lifetime ban, and involved the use of a fraudulent driver's licence.

The Court of Appeal considered arguments regarding proportionality, parity, the jump principle, and the totality principle.

The court found no errors in principle by the sentencing judge, emphasizing the appellant's incorrigibility and the increased maximum sentence for driving while disqualified.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed, upholding the original sentence.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental illness, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition maintaining his detention at a high-security psychiatric facility.

The appellant argued the ORB failed to consider all statutory factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, recognize a treatment impasse, and exercise its inquisitorial and supervisory powers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable.

The court held that the ORB properly considered all relevant factors, reasonably declined to find a treatment impasse given the facility's ongoing efforts to find treatment options, and adequately fulfilled its supervisory responsibilities.

The appellant, A.I.B., appealed his conviction for assault and sexual assault, and the dismissal of his application to re-open the trial.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's application of the R. v. W.(D.) credibility analysis and the refusal to re-open the trial based on new legal developments and alleged inconsistencies in the victim impact statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's W.(D.) analysis or the application of the Palmer test for re-opening the trial.