Dan Guttman

The appellants were convicted of common assault and aggravated assault following a bar fight.

They appealed their aggravated assault convictions, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to properly instruct the jury on the doctrine of common purpose under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code, despite the Crown heavily relying on it.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge's brief reference to a 'joint criminal enterprise' without a full explanation of the elements of common purpose left the jury without adequate guidance.

The appeals were allowed, the convictions for aggravated assault were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered the claims of 17 individuals alleging that the special diet allowance schedule under Ontario's social assistance system discriminated against them based on disability.

The claimants argued that the schedule failed to fund or underfunded special diets for 11 different medical conditions.

Applying the four-part test from Ball v. Ontario, the Tribunal dismissed the majority of the claims, finding that the claimants failed to establish that their conditions required modifications to a regular healthy diet, that the diets led to additional costs, or that the medical community generally recognized the need for such diets.

However, the Tribunal allowed the claims for Prader-Willi syndrome and unintended weight loss due to renal failure, as the respondent conceded these conditions met the Ball test.

The Tribunal ordered retroactive benefits for these two conditions, rejecting the respondent's argument that the recognition of Prader-Willi syndrome constituted a substantial change in the law that would preclude retroactive relief.

The appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful confinement, raising four issues including the admission of out-of-court videotaped statements, eyewitness identification frailties, failure to establish the elements of the offence, and the trial judge's treatment of a witness's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the admission of the statements under the Khelawon threshold reliability test.

The court also upheld the trial judge's acceptance of the eyewitness identification and his decision to accept the witness's evidence in chief over cross-examination due to the appellant's outburst in court.

The appellant appealed his conviction.

The Crown conceded that the statutory presumption did not apply and it bore the onus to prove the absence of bolus drinking, which was a critical assumption underlying the expert's opinion.

The Court of Appeal found that the Crown failed to meet this onus and that the trial judge misunderstood the burden of proof.

The appeal was allowed and a verdict of acquittal was substituted.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, noting that totality was taken into account when the appellant was sentenced for further offences subsequent to this sentence.

Furthermore, three years had elapsed, the appellant was facing new charges, and the appeal would have no practical impact.

The youth appellant was convicted of three robberies and the Crown sought Serious Violent Offence (SVO) designations under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Crown relied on victim impact statements to prove serious bodily harm, and the youth justice court judge denied the appellant's request to cross-examine the victims.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that an SVO designation is part of the sentencing process, making victim impact statements admissible.

The Court further held that while offenders have a right to cross-examine on disputed facts at sentencing, this right is not automatic for victim impact statements; the offender must satisfy an 'air of reality' test that the facts are disputable and the request is not specious.

The appeal was dismissed as the appellant's request lacked an air of reality.

The respondent was convicted of four weapons offences, including possession of a restricted firearm with ammunition and weapons trafficking, while subject to a weapons prohibition.

The sentencing judge imposed a one-year sentence plus two months of pre-trial custody, mistakenly believing only two offences carried a one-year minimum.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the sentence fell markedly below the acceptable range for such serious weapons offences.

The sentence was varied to a total of two years less a day in addition to time served.