Daniel J. Brodsky

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 20, 2005.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as moot, referring to endorsement C46302.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant failed to appear and sought an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal declined to decide on the adjournment request, finding that the appeal was moot because the appellant was already subject to a subsequent detention order issued by the Board.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the dismissal of a dangerous and long-term offender application and the sentence imposed for aggravated assault.

The sentencing judge had ruled that a dangerous offender designation required the predicate offence to warrant a minimum two-year sentence, similar to the long-term offender provision.

The Court of Appeal held this was an error of law, as the dangerous offender provision contains no such requirement.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the sentence, designated the respondent a long-term offender, and imposed a sentence of time served plus a further period of community supervision.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of two inmates charged with second-degree murder following the fatal stabbing of a fellow inmate at Kingston Penitentiary.

The trial judge acquitted the accused on the basis of self-defence under s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred in finding an air of reality to the self-defence claim and in assessing its subjective elements, specifically by finding that words alone could constitute an assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the victim's words, considered in the context of his aggressive conduct and history of violence, were sufficient to constitute an assault, and that the trial judge properly inferred the accused's subjective state of mind from the circumstantial evidence.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion for certiorari regarding his committal for trial on a charge of first degree murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there was a basis upon which the preliminary inquiry judge could conclude that a reasonable jury properly instructed could find the appellant guilty under section 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and sentence.

Following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Johnson, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the dangerous offender designation, and referred the matter back for a new sentencing hearing, finding this was not a rare case where the curative proviso could be applied.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after shooting his wife.

At trial, he raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The defence called three psychiatrists who testified that the appellant suffered from a mental disorder, while the Crown called no psychiatric evidence.

The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing the jury's guilty verdict was unreasonable as it conflicted with the uncontradicted expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury was entitled to reject the factual underpinnings of the experts' opinions, which were based largely on the appellant's own statements, and to rely on other evidence surrounding the shooting to conclude the NCR defence was not established.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to grant a stay of proceedings after police negligently lost a five-minute videotaped statement from an eyewitness.

The trial judge found the loss breached the respondents' s. 7 Charter rights and prejudiced their ability to make full answer and defence.

The Court of Appeal agreed there was a s. 7 breach but held that a stay was inappropriate, as the lost evidence did not cause irreparable harm to the integrity of the justice system or such prejudice that no other remedy would suffice.

The Court noted other remedies, such as excluding the identification evidence, were available.

The stay was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, who had a long history of psychiatric disorders and was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Code provisions governing the disposition of NCR accused.

He argued that section 672.54 of the Criminal Code violated sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada, relying on its concurrent decision in Winko, held that the provisions do not violate the Charter as they are carefully crafted to protect the liberty of the NCR accused while ensuring public safety.

The appeal was dismissed.