Danielle Carbonneau

The applicant, who was convicted of uttering a threat to cause bodily harm based on his rap music lyrics, applied under section 684 of the Criminal Code for state-funded legal assistance for his appeal.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove he was indigent, as he likely had undisclosed income from his music career.

Furthermore, the court held that the appeal was frivolous, devoid of merit, and not in the public interest to fund, given the minor sentence imposed and the applicant's ability to represent himself.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on charges of impaired operation of a motor vehicle and driving over 80.

The appeal judge found that the trial judge erred by applying the wrong test for reasonable suspicion to demand a roadside screening test, misapprehending the evidence regarding the respondent's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter, and failing to conduct a proper s. 24(2) analysis.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The Crown brought an application to declare the defendant a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the defendant had launched a prodigious number of meritless proceedings across various tribunals and courts.

The application was granted, and the affected existing proceedings were stayed pending an ex parte application to dismiss them.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder, brought an application to quash his committal to stand trial following a preliminary inquiry.

He argued there was no evidence that he forcibly confined the deceased distinct from the act of killing during a robbery in a small washroom.

The reviewing judge dismissed the application, finding there was some evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could conclude the applicant unlawfully confined the deceased for a period of time beyond what was integral to the killing.

The appellant appealed her conviction for assault simpliciter, arguing the trial judge reached irreconcilable verdicts, provided insufficient reasons, misapprehended evidence, and drew impermissible inferences.

The trial judge had acquitted the appellant of assault with a weapon but found she assaulted the complainant by forcibly removing him from her apartment.

The Superior Court of Justice found no material misapprehension of evidence or unreasonable inferences, concluding the evidence supported the conviction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault and choking after attacking an intoxicated stranger in a public park.

The Crown sought a sentence of four years, while the defence sought a sentence at the lower end of the three to five-year range.

The court emphasized the brutality of the assault, the vulnerability of the victim, and the need for general deterrence, while noting the offender's alcohol issues and potential for rehabilitation.

The offender was sentenced to four years in the penitentiary, along with mandatory ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The appellant was convicted of careless storage and transportation of a firearm after the trial judge permitted the Crown to amend the Information.

The appellant appealed, arguing the amendments created new offences outside the six-month limitation period for summary conviction offences under s. 786(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that while the amendments did not prejudice the appellant, they did create new charges that were statute-barred.

The convictions were quashed and acquittals entered.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and choking following an encounter with the complainant in a park.

The complainant, who was highly intoxicated and lost, testified that she was sexually assaulted and choked by the accused, a stranger.

The accused claimed the encounter was consensual and that the complainant suddenly began yelling 'rape'.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible and found that the complainant lacked the capacity to consent due to alcohol impairment.

The court further found that the complainant did not consent and that the accused did not have an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction trial judge's decision to stay charges of impaired driving and over 80 due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was 17 months, falling just below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters under the new Jordan framework.

The Crown argued the trial judge reversed the onus and failed to consider the defence's lack of initiative.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the transitional framework from Jordan, noting that defence initiative was not required for the period preceding the Jordan decision, and the trial judge properly considered the Crown's delay in disclosure and the overall context.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for sexual assault and possession of a weapon.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility and by failing to provide an interpreter for a Crown witness whose first language was not English.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments were entitled to deference and that she properly exercised her discretion in allowing the witness to testify in English without an interpreter.

The appellant pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

He appealed his conviction, arguing his plea was not free and voluntary because he was under immense psychological pressure to obtain a mental health assessment.

The summary conviction appeal court found that the appellant's desperation to access psychiatric care robbed him of the conscious ability to make a voluntary decision.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his assault conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons and ignored evidence of self-defence and the complainant's intoxication.

The complainant, the sole witness at trial, testified that she had delivered the first blows during the altercation.

The Superior Court of Justice found the trial judge's brief reasons inadequate, noting they failed to explain why the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and appeared to reverse the burden of proof regarding consent and self-defence.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

Following a jury trial, three accused were convicted of robbery arising from a group robbery of two complainants in a Toronto hotel room during Caribana weekend.

The sentencing judge found that although threats of violence were made by a co‑accused not before the court, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a firearm was used or that the robbery was pre‑planned.

The court assessed the offenders’ differing personal circumstances, including one offender’s extensive criminal record and the others’ relative youth and rehabilitative prospects.

Applying principles of proportionality, parity, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court imposed distinct sentences reflecting each offender’s background and role.

Sentences included time served and probation for one offender, a short custodial sentence consecutive to an existing federal sentence for another, and a conditional sentence with probation for the third.