Charmaine M. Wong

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

At the request of the appellant, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his sentence after forging his wife's signature 26 times over eight months to withdraw $114,994.07 from her RRSP account, leaving her with a $25,000 tax debt.

The sentencing judge rejected the appellant's explanation for the use of the funds and concluded that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the breach of trust, planning, and need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's analysis or in the restitution order, noting that any overlapping issues could be addressed in family law proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including a violent home invasion and robbery, and was sentenced to a further six years in custody after receiving credit for pre-trial custody and a four-year discount for acting as a police informant.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentence violated the 'jump' principle and that the informer discount was insufficient.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence appropriate given the significant violence involved and holding that there is no fixed tariff for informer discounts.

The court also declined to order state-funded counsel under s. 684(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, a newspaper reporter, wrote an article that breached a publication ban under s. 486(5) of the Criminal Code.

Neither the reporter nor the newspaper knew of the ban.

The trial judge acquitted the reporter as a principal but convicted the newspaper.

On summary conviction appeal, the reporter was convicted as an aider and abettor under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code based on an objective mens rea standard.

The Court of Appeal allowed the reporter's appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that liability as an aider or abettor under s. 21(1)(b) or (c) requires subjective mens rea, specifically knowledge of the circumstances constituting the offence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and being disguised with intent to commit an indictable offence following a home invasion.

He was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding that the sentencing range for home invasions had increased from five to eight years to seven to eleven years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that sentencing ranges are flexible guidelines that have evolved to reflect the gravity of home invasions.

The eight-year sentence was found to be fit given the terrorizing nature of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The young person appealed a disposition imposed by the Youth Court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge gave adequate reasons for his credibility findings, properly applied the principles in W.D., and found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The young person appealed a secure custody sentence imposed for a vicious, unprovoked attack on another youth.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the devastating consequences on the victim and the appellant's history of violent episodes at school.

The dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and converted the sentence to open custody, emphasizing the appellant's rehabilitation, genuine remorse, and the need to avoid disrupting his schooling.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and his 15-month sentence.

He argued he should have been convicted of theft, as he only handed a note to a bank teller while disguised.

The Court of Appeal upheld the robbery conviction, finding an implicit threat of violence in his disguise and conduct.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge erred in principle by failing to consider a conditional sentence for a first-time offender with a favourable pre-sentence report, especially given a co-accused's lighter sentence.

The 15-month sentence was converted to a conditional sentence.

The young person pleaded guilty to aggravated assault following a swarming incident where the victim was repeatedly stabbed with a box cutter.

The youth court judge imposed a sentence of two years' probation.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the probation sentence demonstrably unfit given the seriousness of the violent offence, the young person's role as the ringleader, and the devastating impact on the victim.

The sentence was varied to a nine-month custody and supervision order followed by six months' probation.

The appellant was convicted of criminal harassment against his former common-law partner and sentenced to thirty days in custody plus three years of probation.

One of the probation conditions required him to leave the province of Ontario within two weeks of his release.

The appellant appealed both the conviction and the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal, holding that banishment from an entire province is an extreme measure that cannot be justified as a reasonable condition under section 732.1(3)(h) of the Criminal Code.

The court struck down the banishment condition and substituted it with prohibitions on communicating with the victim, coming within 500 metres of her, and living in her community.

The appellant, a 26-year-old teacher, appealed her sentence of 15 months' imprisonment and two years' probation for the sexual exploitation of a 14-year-old former student.

She argued the trial judge erred by treating breach of trust as an aggravating factor, as it is an essential element of the offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that facts establishing the essential elements of an offence do not lose their relevance on sentencing and can be considered in the context of the entire circumstances.