Christine L. Tier

Johnson Aziga appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, ten counts of aggravated sexual assault, and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault, as well as his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

The Court of Appeal set aside the murder convictions, substituting them with manslaughter, due to misdirection on mens rea for murder (oblique intention).

It also set aside two aggravated sexual assault convictions (Counts 6 and 8) and ordered new trials, finding the trial judge misdirected the jury on the "realistic possibility of HIV transmission" for oral penetration.

The appeal on the remaining convictions and the dangerous offender designation/indeterminate sentence was dismissed.

The appellant, Gary Willett, appealed his convictions for child abduction, assault, and theft over $5,000.

He brought a fresh evidence application, including the complainant's testimony from his wife's separate trial, which significantly differed from previous evidence.

The Crown conceded the fresh evidence should be admitted and the convictions quashed.

The Court of Appeal applied the Palmer criteria, finding the new evidence admissible as it undermined the complainant's credibility and the reliability of his original testimony, thereby affecting the safety of all verdicts.

Consequently, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered on all counts.

The appellant, who held himself out as a healer, appealed his convictions on five counts of sexual assault against adult female patients.

He argued the trial judge erred in allowing the cross-count application of similar act evidence and in his approach to the issue of consent regarding one complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's admission of the similar act evidence to establish the actus reus, nor in his conclusion that the complainant did not subjectively consent and that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm and sentenced to 39 months in jail.

At trial, the Crown had requested a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought an intermittent sentence.

The trial judge imposed 39 months without notifying defence counsel that he was considering a sentence significantly higher than the Crown's position.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found this lack of notice to be a procedural error.

The court varied the sentence to two years' imprisonment, followed by three years of probation, accommodating the appellant's request to serve his sentence in a penitentiary.

The accused's convictions for attempted murder were quashed on appeal, leading to a reassessment of his sentence for aggravated sexual assault and administering a noxious substance.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario reduced the total sentence from 111 months to 81 months.

The court affirmed that while the mens rea for attempted murder is higher, the accused's conduct, involving deliberate infection of young men with HIV, demonstrated a high level of moral blameworthiness, justifying a substantial sentence despite the quashed convictions.

The court also addressed the application of the Kienapple principle to enter convictions on previously stayed charges.

The appellant, Eric German Flores, appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the four-year sentence imposed.

The appeal from conviction raised issues regarding the trial judge's instructions to the jury on the use of post-event evidence, specifically the complainant's sexual assault examination and prophylactic treatment, and a text message sent by the appellant.

The appeal from sentence challenged the trial judge's finding that the offence involved a breach of trust.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no prejudice in the jury instructions and that the sentence was within the appropriate range, emphasizing that the appellant took advantage of a vulnerable person.

The victim surcharge imposed at trial was set aside.

The appellant, a high school teacher, was convicted of sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a former student.

He appealed the convictions, arguing the trial judge misapplied the burden of proof, applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence, and erred in assessing credibility.

He also appealed his one-year sentence as harsh and excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments and concluding the sentence was fit given the extent of the manipulation and grooming.

The appellant, who is HIV positive, was convicted of three counts of attempted murder, three counts of aggravated sexual assault, and two counts of administering a noxious thing (HIV).

The trial judge imposed a global sentence of 14 years, with a net sentence of 9 years and 3 months after credit for presentence custody, plus a five-year long-term supervision order.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed the three attempted murder convictions due to misdirection on the mens rea requirement, finding the trial judge failed to adequately explain that the Crown must prove either that the appellant's purpose was to kill or that he believed death was a virtually certain consequence of his actions.

The convictions for aggravated sexual assault were upheld.

The Court ordered a new trial on the attempted murder charges and set aside the stay on the charge of attempting to administer a noxious thing to one complainant, ordering a new trial on that count as well.

The sentence appeal was adjourned pending further submissions.

The appellant was convicted of breaking and entering in connection with a bank vault theft in Burlington.

He appealed on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his trial counsel failed to bring a Carosella application for a stay of proceedings based on lost police booking video evidence.

The appellant also appealed his sentence of two and a half years' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that a Carosella application would have had no chance of success given the innocent explanation for the loss of evidence and the appellant's lack of diligence in requesting it.

The court also found that the mid-trial instruction provided by the trial judge was actually more beneficial to the defence than the standard lost evidence instruction.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was dismissed as fit and free from error.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his continued detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care but failed to specify the terms and conditions for an independent psychiatric assessment at Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre.

The Board had improperly delegated to the parties the responsibility to work out the details of the assessment.

The Court of Appeal found this constituted an error justifying intervention.

The court set aside the deficient disposition and replaced it with detailed terms for an in-patient assessment at ROH, including security measures, duration, and cost allocation to the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code for acts committed over five months and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

He appealed on the basis of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Trial counsel had presented telephone records purporting to show over 900 calls between the appellant and the complainant to support a defence of consensual contact, but failed to authenticate the records as required by law.

The trial judge disregarded the unauthenticated records, found the complainant credible, and convicted the appellant.

The Court of Appeal found that trial counsel's failure to address authentication fell below the standard of reasonable competence and prejudiced the appellant in a manner that might have impacted the verdict.

The court admitted fresh evidence, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

The appellants were convicted of offences arising from a residential break-in involving assault and property damage.

They appealed on four grounds: conflict of interest of trial counsel for one appellant, erroneous evidentiary rulings regarding prior inconsistent statements, reliance on inadmissible identification and hearsay evidence, and trial proceedings conducted in the absence of one appellant.

The Crown conceded all grounds of appeal and acknowledged that a miscarriage of justice occurred due to cumulative legal errors and the conflict of interest.

The appellate court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial, expressing trust that the Crown would exercise discretion to enter a stay of proceedings.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault relating to events on December 25, 2014.

The appellant had been acquitted of a separate assault charge relating to events in summer 2013.

The appellant and complainant were co-parenting their child and maintained a non-intimate relationship at the time of the alleged assault.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the trial judge materially misapprehended evidence regarding who invited the complainant to stay overnight, and second, that the trial judge improperly relied on a police officer's opinion regarding the complainant's expectations about police involvement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds and upheld the conviction.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and simple assault (included offence on choking charge) and acquitted of threatening death following an altercation with his wife.

The appellant appealed on two grounds: (1) that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury there was no evidence the pot of spaghetti sauce fell from the stove rather than being poured by the appellant, and (2) that the trial judge erred in allowing Officer Henderson to testify about the appearance of neck injuries as fingerprints.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds of appeal and upheld the convictions.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 21, 2016, which ordered his continued detention at the maximum security facility at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appeal was allowed due to a miscarriage of justice arising from a misunderstanding at the Board hearing.

The Board mistakenly believed that counsel for the appellant (Alvin Pollard) had consented to the Hospital and Crown's recommendation for continued detention, when in fact Mr. Pollard understood himself to be amicus and did not appreciate the significance of the Board's questions.

The Court of Appeal set aside the disposition and referred the matter back to the Board for a new hearing, with directions that Mr. Pollard shall not serve as either amicus or counsel in respect of the appellant.

An appeal of conviction and sentence for historical sexual offences.

The appellant, a pediatrician, was convicted of three counts of indecent assault relating to two former female patients, with offences spanning from 1964 to 2013.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty based on the complainants' evidence while rejecting his denials.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside all three convictions, ordering a new trial based on multiple misapprehensions of evidence by the trial judge, including erroneous inferences drawn from uncontradicted evidence and improper reliance on the absence of motive to lie as a credibility enhancer.

Appeal from a conviction for aggravated assault, use of a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence, discharge of a firearm with intent, breach of probation, possession of a prohibited firearm, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The sole issue at trial was identity.

The appellant was identified as the shooter in surveillance video footage by three witnesses based on recognition from prior acquaintance.

The trial judge convicted the appellant based on this recognition evidence despite finding that facial features were not visible on the poor-quality video.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by failing to properly scrutinize the reliability of the recognition evidence and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The conviction was set aside and an acquittal was entered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter of a dwelling house, two counts of assault, and uttering a death threat arising from a single incident in which he and an accomplice broke into a basement apartment occupied by his former girlfriend and her new partner.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: misuse of his accomplice's guilty plea, misapprehension of evidence, erroneous credibility findings, and improper reliance on the complainant's demeanour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the convictions.

The applicant, awaiting trial for obstruct justice, brought a motion to exclude the transcript of his compelled testimony from his mother's preliminary inquiry, alleging violations of sections 7 and 13 of the Charter.

The applicant had refused to answer substantive questions at the preliminary inquiry, leading to the obstruct justice charge.

The court dismissed the section 7 claim, finding no principle of fundamental justice that balances the necessity of evidence against a witness's psychological integrity.

However, the court granted the section 13 claim, holding that the transcript constituted incriminating evidence and that the obstruct justice charge, which was based on a refusal to provide material evidence rather than giving false evidence, did not fall within the perjury or contradictory evidence exceptions to section 13.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm offences and his sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter application to exclude a loaded handgun found during a warrantless search incident to arrest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the appellant based on corroborated information from multiple confidential informants.

The court also agreed with the trial judge's s. 24(2) Charter analysis admitting the evidence.

The sentence appeal was allowed on consent solely to increase the appellant's pre-trial custody credit to a 1.5 ratio in accordance with R. v. Summers, but was otherwise dismissed.