Célia Jutras

The appellant pleaded guilty to uttering threats, theft, and fraud.

He appealed the one-year custodial sentence imposed for uttering threats, which arose from Twitter posts expressing support for ISIS and offering to ensure 'something happens' if given Canadian addresses.

The appellant, an Aboriginal man with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, had already served the sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice exercised its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The court found the sentencing judge erred in principle by overemphasizing denunciation and deterrence based on public sensitivity to terrorism, noting the appellant's cognitive limitations, lack of sophistication, and the limited public alarm caused by his actions.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to time served (four months).

A young person appealed a conviction for uttering a threat to cause death under s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following a family dispute.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to properly apply the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D.), improperly relied on demeanour evidence, and failed to adequately address conflicting testimony.

The appeal court held that the trial judge sufficiently explained why the defence evidence was rejected and properly assessed credibility, including considering motive to fabricate and the surrounding circumstances.

The court found no error in law or palpable and overriding error of fact and concluded the verdict was supported by the evidence.

The applicant, who was convicted of driving while suspended and obstructing a conservation officer under the Provincial Offences Act, brought an application for certiorari to set aside the convictions.

The applicant advanced Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Arguments (OPCA), claiming that the statutory right of appeal did not apply to him as a "man not wishing to act in such a capacity".

The court rejected these arguments as spurious and lacking merit.

The application was dismissed because section 141(3) of the Provincial Offences Act precludes an application for certiorari where a statutory right of appeal is available.

The applicant brought two applications seeking state-funded counsel for his summary conviction appeal for assault and mischief.

The first application under s. 684(1) of the Criminal Code was dismissed because the Superior Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction, as the provision applies only to indictable appeals before the Court of Appeal.

The second application for a Rowbotham order was also dismissed.

Although the applicant was denied Legal Aid and lacked the means to retain counsel, the court found that the appeal was not legally or factually complex and the charges were not sufficiently serious to warrant state-funded counsel.

The applicant was deemed capable of representing himself.