Daniel F. Moore

Rossana Lim and her daughter Shannon Lim brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of section 11(b) (right to trial within a reasonable time).

The accused were charged with fraud-related offences and faced a trial date set for January 8, 2018, approximately 43 months and 9 days after the initial charge.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the delay exceeded the Jordan presumptive ceiling of 18 months, it was justified by defence delay, case complexity, and the transitional exceptional circumstance of good faith plea negotiations conducted under the pre-Jordan legal framework.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated October 31, 2016.

The appeal was dismissed.

An addendum was issued after the reasons were prepared and signed, noting that counsel for the appellant subsequently provided the reasons for a ruling of July 31, 2014, which stayed the criminal harassment charge.

The trial judge's reasons, which detailed the evidence including the effect on the victim and the appellant's assessment under the Mental Health Act, were acknowledged by counsel to undermine many of the arguments made during the appeal, though the court found these reasons did not change the basis for dismissing the appeal.

An appeal against an Ontario Review Board disposition denying expanded privileges and absolute discharge for an individual found not criminally responsible on a charge of criminal harassment.

The appellant argued the Board failed to conduct a separate and specific analysis of whether his conduct would constitute a serious criminal offence with real risk of physical or psychological harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasons demonstrated proper consideration of the seriousness of the offence and the risk to the community.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition maintaining a detention order.

The appellant argued the Board erred in concluding she continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and that detention remained the least restrictive measure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding the expert evidence established the appellant suffered from schizophrenia with persistent delusional beliefs related to the index offense (assault of her mother), lacked insight into her condition, and would discontinue treatment if discharged.

Although the appellant had been placed in supervised community accommodation since the appeal was filed, the court found this did not undermine the Board's conclusion that conditional discharge would be inadequate to manage the risk.

The detention order was necessary to enable the hospital to approve and supervise the appellant's community placement.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and other offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board maintaining her detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

She argued the Board erred in its application of the Winko test by considering the risk of psychological harm sufficient to meet the threshold and in finding a detention order was the least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded the appellant remained a significant threat to the public and that a conditional discharge would be insufficient to manage her risk.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering her detention in the General Forensic Unit at CAMH.

The appellant challenged the finding that she was mentally ill and posed a significant threat, and argued for a conditional discharge or a Community Treatment Order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was firmly grounded in the evidence and not unreasonable, and noting the Community Treatment Order alternative was not advanced before the Board.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to surrender him to the United States, arguing that extradition would violate his section 7 Charter rights due to risks to his personal safety as a cooperating inmate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the Minister reasonably balanced the risks against the protective measures available in the U.S. prison system.

The Court held that the applicant did not face a level of risk beyond that of most cooperating inmates and that potential placement in a special housing unit would not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

Sentencing following convictions for seven counts of transferring a firearm and sixteen counts of possession of a firearm for the purpose of transferring it under the Criminal Code.

The offender purchased 23 firearms using a valid licence over an approximately 18‑month period, with several later recovered at crime scenes and others unaccounted for.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in firearms trafficking cases given the risk of violent gun crime, while also considering mitigating factors including youth, lack of prior record, educational pursuits, and supportive family background.

After reviewing comparable sentencing authorities and applying the totality principle, the court set a global sentence of eight years.

Enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody was granted at 1.5:1, resulting in a reduced custodial sentence.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because she acquitted on two other incidents based on unreliability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly explained why the evidence for the third incident was reliable despite concerns about the first two.

The appellant, an alternative medicine practitioner, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault against female patients and received a 23-month conditional sentence with strict house arrest.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by not permitting an exception for work or education purposes.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where denunciation and deterrence are paramount, a punitive condition precluding work or education exceptions is appropriate and entitled to appellate deference.

The accused was tried on 29 firearms offences arising from the purchase of 23 handguns over a short period, seven of which were later recovered at crime scenes or from unrelated persons with defaced serial numbers.

The court rejected the accused's evidence that he was a secret firearms collector whose guns had been stolen from lawful storage, finding his testimony not credible and his financing and storage explanations implausible.

Applying the W(D) framework and the circumstantial evidence rule, the court held that the only rational inference was that the accused bought the firearms for resale.

Convictions were entered on seven counts of transferring a firearm and sixteen counts of possession of a firearm for the purpose of transferring it.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which found she continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and could not be managed by a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusions were reasonable and supported by evidence, particularly given the appellant's ongoing major mental illness, medication non-compliance, and lack of insight.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering her continued detention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant continues to pose a significant risk due to her lack of insight into her mental illness, history of non-compliance with medication, and the violent nature of the index offence.

The court concluded the detention order was the least restrictive measure to manage the risk.

The accused applied to exclude evidence, including a loaded handgun, seized from a hotel room following a warrantless police entry.

The accused argued the initial police entry violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and sought exclusion under s. 24(2).

The court held that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room because his lawful entitlement to occupy the room had expired before police entered.

In the alternative, the court found that the brief warrantless entry by police was justified as a safety search to secure a firearm and ensure no persons remained in the room.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for impaired driving arising from a collision with a parked vehicle while operating a golf cart at a private campground.

The appellant argued that the trial judge improperly inferred that the alleged post‑accident alcohol consumption could not explain the level of intoxication observed by police without expert evidence, applied a stricter credibility standard to defence witnesses, failed to provide adequate reasons for accepting civilian witness testimony, and misapplied the W.D. credibility framework.

The court held that the trial judge was entitled to rely on judicial notice and supporting expert evidence regarding the relationship between rising blood alcohol concentration and increasing impairment.

The court further held that the credibility findings and evaluation of witness testimony were reasonable and entitled to deference, and that the trial judge properly applied the W.D. analysis when rejecting the defence evidence and relying on accepted Crown evidence.

The conviction for impaired driving was upheld.

An NCR accused detained at a psychiatric hospital challenged the constitutionality of s. 672.56 of the Criminal Code, arguing that it violated s. 7 of the Charter by allowing the hospital’s person in charge to determine whether increased restrictions on liberty should trigger mandatory Review Board oversight.

The applicant argued this created a conflict of interest and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that when s. 672.56 is considered within the broader statutory framework of Part XX.1, including discretionary review powers and the availability of judicial review, the scheme provides a fair process.

The notification requirement imposes a statutory duty rather than discretionary review authority.

Accordingly, the provision does not violate principles of fundamental justice.

The accused pleaded guilty to two historical sexual assaults committed in 1981 and 1993, both involving the use of firearms and violence against strangers.

DNA evidence from preserved forensic samples led to identification decades later while the accused was incarcerated in the United States for other offences.

The court considered aggravating factors including the age of one complainant, the use of weapons, home invasion, extensive criminal history, and high risk of re‑offending.

After assessing parity with comparable authorities and applying the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public, the court determined appropriate consecutive sentences of 11 and 13 years before reductions.

Applying the totality principle and granting limited credit for cooperation with police, the court reduced the overall sentence to a global term of 20 years, to commence after completion of the accused’s American sentence.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant executed at his apartment in a trial for possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought to rely on an edited information-to-obtain that contained redactions to protect a confidential informant's identity.

The Crown proposed that portions of the information that could not be summarized without disclosing the informant's identity be excluded from consideration, while the Crown would rely on the remaining edited portions and judicial summaries.

The court was asked whether the sixth step of the Garofoli procedure permits the Crown to decline to rely on excised material that cannot be summarized without risking disclosure of the confidential informant's identity.

The appellant, a 23-year-old first-time offender, appealed his sentence of 5 years' imprisonment for sexually assaulting two acquaintances on successive dates.

The offences involved planning, violence, threats, and attempted rape.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the serious nature of the offences required a penitentiary sentence and that the 5-year sentence was lenient, reflecting the appellant's youth and lack of a prior record.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice finding that the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed on an “Over 80” charge under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code because the accused had not been served with process for that Information.

The appeal court reviewed transcripts of earlier appearances showing that counsel or agents appeared pursuant to a designation while the replacement Information was before the court.

The court held that appearances by designated counsel or agents were legally equivalent to the accused being present and constituted attornment to the court’s jurisdiction, even if formal process requiring attendance had not been issued.

Any defect in process affects jurisdiction over the person only and does not invalidate a facially valid Information charging an offence.

The trial judge erred in concluding that jurisdiction was lost.