Christopher M. Speyer

The appellant, a police officer, was convicted of assault and assault with a weapon after using excessive force against an intoxicated complainant during an arrest.

His appeal to the summary conviction appeal court was dismissed.

He sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the lower courts erred in their application of the justification defence under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave, finding no error of law and concluding that the proposed appeal did not raise an unsettled question of law of public importance.

The applicant brought an application for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid challenging the legality of his detention.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant sought directions regarding the order of filing evidence at the second stage of the application, specifically whether he could file rebuttal evidence after the respondents filed their record.

The respondents argued the applicant should file all evidence first, consistent with typical application procedures.

The court held that habeas corpus proceedings are unique because the burden shifts to the respondents to justify the deprivation of liberty.

The court permitted the applicant to file rebuttal evidence after the respondents' materials so that the applicant could tailor his response to the case advanced against him.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery and assault while carrying a knife arising from a planned carjacking in an underground parking garage.

The offender approached a vulnerable victim, threatened her with a knife, and stole her vehicle before later being apprehended after a police chase.

The court considered significant aggravating factors including the use of a weapon, targeting of a vulnerable victim, and the offender’s leadership role in the robbery.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record at the time, and subsequent diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Finding no causal link between the mental illness and the offence but considering the offender’s circumstances, the court imposed a custodial sentence with probation and ancillary orders.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and impaired driving.

The offender attacked a victim outside a bar with a machete, striking her in the head and causing a serious laceration and long-term psychological harm, before threatening others inside the bar.

The court considered the violent and unprovoked nature of the assault, the use of a weapon, and the significant impact on the victim as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s guilty plea, lack of prior violent record, advanced age, long-standing physical and mental health issues, and compliance with strict bail conditions.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence reflecting denunciation and deterrence while accounting for pre-trial custody credit.

The accused was charged with care or control over 80 and released on a promise to appear.

A justice of the peace failed to properly confirm the promise to appear under s. 508 of the Criminal Code, issuing a summons for a new date without endorsing the cancellation of the original promise.

The trial judge quashed the information for want of jurisdiction, and the summary conviction appeal judge affirmed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that non-compliance with s. 508 results in a loss of jurisdiction over the person, not the offence, and does not affect the validity of a properly laid information.

The Crown sought certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry decision discharging the accused on a charge of sexual exploitation while committing him to trial on related sexual offences.

The reviewing court considered whether the preliminary inquiry judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the evidence when assessing whether a relationship of trust or authority existed between the accused and the complainant.

The court found the judge overlooked evidence supporting an inference that the accused occupied a position of trust, including parental permission for overnight visits and the accused’s own statements assuming a “big brother” role.

The failure to consider this evidence constituted jurisdictional error.

The discharge was quashed and the accused was ordered committed to stand trial on the sexual exploitation charge.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of defence and counterclaim for persistently failing to satisfy undertakings given on an examination for discovery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's discretionary order was entitled to deference and was supported by the record, which showed the appellant failed to fully answer undertakings despite four court-ordered timetables in a case involving allegations of fraud.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision that quashed his acquittal.

The trial judge had rejected the applicant's defence of non-insane automatism because he failed to lead expert evidence as required by R. v. Stone.

Furthermore, there was no evidence that the applicant was tricked into consuming alcohol.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding no issue of sufficient merit or importance.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The trial judge had stated that the complainant's viva voce evidence was totally uncontradicted.

The Court of Appeal found this to be a dispositive error, as the appellant's videotaped statement, introduced by the Crown, contained specific denials of the conduct attributed to him.

The trial judge failed to resolve these conflicts and failed to apply the W.D. principles.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the jury charge was misleading regarding credibility findings across counts, the consent instructions should have been tailored, and the trial judge erred in findings of fact for sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury instructions were adequate and standard.

The court also granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the appeal, holding the trial judge's findings of fact were well explained and open to him.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, arguing the verdict was unreasonable due to insufficient evidence linking him to the attempted carjacking and establishing the weapon was a real firearm.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the appellant was a party to the robbery, but found insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was real.

The appeal was allowed in part, substituting a conviction for robbery and reducing the sentence to 12 months' imprisonment.

The accused applied for a bail review after a justice of the peace ordered detention on the secondary ground following charges of attempted murder and aggravated assault arising from an alleged knife attack.

The reviewing court found that the proposed surety on review was reliable and capable of supervising the accused, addressing the secondary ground concerns.

The court then considered whether detention was necessary on the tertiary ground under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the alleged offence and the apparent strength of the Crown’s case, the court held that the statutory factors did not reach the highest level and that the tertiary ground must be used sparingly.

Considering the accused’s age, lack of criminal record, positive antecedents, and the strength of the proposed surety, detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The Ontario Review Board appealed a costs order made against it by an application judge following a successful application by the respondent to quash an adjournment order made by the ORB.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the costs order, finding that the application judge applied the wrong test.

The Court held that the test for awarding costs against the ORB should be at least as stringent as the test for awarding costs against the Crown in criminal matters, requiring a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable standards, which was not met in this case.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 20 years.

At trial, the defence argued that the main Crown witness was the actual shooter and attacked the integrity of the police investigation.

The trial judge permitted the lead detective to provide an investigative narrative to confirm the Crown witness's evidence.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the admission of this investigative narrative, the explanation for why a witness was not called, and the admission of prior consistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the defence's attack on the investigation justified the Crown's response and that the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the limited use of the evidence.

The 20-year parole ineligibility period was also upheld given the appellant's violent criminal record.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault.

The determinative issue was whether the trial judge erred in failing to provide an adequate answer to the jury's questions concerning the timeline of various events.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge did not properly answer the questions and it was not satisfied the result would have been the same had they been properly answered.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellants were convicted of armed robbery and possession of a loaded restricted firearm following an incident at a clothing store where a third accomplice, who was armed, died in a confrontation with the storeowner.

On appeal, they challenged the jury instructions regarding the storeowner's evidence, the elements of armed robbery, and party liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals against the armed robbery convictions and sentences, finding the jury instructions adequate.

However, the court allowed the appeals regarding the firearm possession convictions, setting them aside and ordering a new trial because the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the specific elements of that offence.

The appellant pleaded guilty in 1989 to break and enter and assault, serving eight months in jail.

Almost twenty years later, fresh evidence revealed that another individual committed the offences.

The appellant appealed his conviction with the consent of the Crown.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, set aside the guilty pleas, and entered acquittals, noting the dangers of mistaken eyewitness identification and the court's discretion to set aside a guilty plea in the interests of justice to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on drug charges.

The trial judge had excluded evidence of cocaine found in a knapsack the accused threw away while fleeing police, finding violations of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the accused was not detained when the police chase began, and by the time he was tackled, police had reasonable grounds for investigative detention.

Furthermore, the accused abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in the knapsack when he threw it away.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate and that the trial judge erred in assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, the basis for rejecting the appellant's testimony was apparent from the record.

The court also held that the trial judge did not err in his credibility findings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his sentence for participating in an unprovoked assault on a civilian and attempting to fabricate evidence.

He argued the trial judge failed to adequately consider the impact of imprisonment on his career.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and agreeing with the trial judge that the grave nature of the offence and the appalling breach of trust required a sentence of imprisonment to address denunciation and deterrence.