David H. Doherty

The appellant, Kalen Schlatter, appealed his conviction for first-degree murder.

The Crown's case included strong circumstantial evidence, DNA, and testimony from undercover officers and a jailhouse informant.

The defence argued a 'third party suspect' and challenged the trial judge's rulings on witness questioning, jury instructions, Vetrovec warning, after-the-fact conduct, and admissibility of undercover agent testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's control of witness questioning, jury instructions, or the Vetrovec warning.

The court also upheld the admissibility of the undercover officers' testimony, finding no breach of the appellant's Charter rights.

The appellant, Kevin Bacchus, appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, stemming from a physical altercation with the complainant.

The appeal raised three grounds: unreasonable verdict, misapprehension of evidence, and error in the use of an audio recording.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, affirming the trial judge's findings.

The court reiterated the high bar for unreasonable verdicts under the Beaudry/Sinclair error and found the alleged misapprehensions immaterial.

The sentence appeal was abandoned.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault and sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended documentary evidence (Uber records, Google timeline, text messages) and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal found that the Uber and Google documents were inconsequential and did not constitute a misapprehension of evidence.

While the text messages did contradict the complainant's testimony regarding the exact time of the assault, the court found this error immaterial to the overall credibility of her narrative, especially given the strong credibility findings made by the trial judge.

The appeals from conviction and sentence were dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where success was divided between the parties.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that, given the divided success, no order of costs would be made for the appeal.

The appellant, D.A., appealed a sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended material evidence and erroneously treated the complainant as a child witness.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made three material factual errors regarding the appellant's credibility, which formed a substantial basis for rejecting his evidence.

These misapprehensions were central to the verdict.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The court did not need to address the "child witness" ground of appeal.

Daniel Denis Labelle, found not criminally responsible, appealed an Ontario Review Board (ORB) disposition ordering his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The ORB's decision followed a joint submission from Labelle, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, and the Crown, after Labelle committed an unprovoked attack on a vulnerable patient.

Amicus curiae argued the ORB too readily relied on the joint submission and failed to impose the least restrictive means.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB carefully reviewed evidence and that Labelle's risk could not be safely managed at St. Joseph's, necessitating transfer to Waypoint.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and forcible seizure, arguing the trial judge failed to provide assistance in advancing a s. 7 lost evidence claim.

The alleged lost evidence involved WhatsApp messages on phones seized by police, but the appellant repeatedly refused to provide passwords.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no viable lost evidence claim as the evidence remained in the appellant's control and police efforts to access the phones were bona fide.

The court also noted the formidable nature of the Crown's case, including an inculpatory email from the appellant.

This is an appeal from a conviction for second-degree murder and aggravated assault.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's jury charge regarding the sufficiency of cautions on eyewitness identification evidence and an ante-mortem statement, and sought to admit fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fresh evidence motion, finding it did not meet the Palmer threshold.

It also dismissed the conviction appeal, concluding that the trial judge's jury instructions on eyewitness identification (including photo/in-dock identification and collusion) and the ante-mortem statement were sufficient and did not constitute an error, particularly given that the accused was known to the eyewitness.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of producing marijuana without authorization and two counts of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

He appealed both his convictions and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of mens rea, party liability, or credibility.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the original sentence demonstrably unfit due to the duration of house arrest and electronic monitoring, and set aside the probation order.

This is an appeal from a Divisional Court decision that granted judicial review, quashing an administrative decision and a request for bids related to the procurement of identification cards.

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) required card stock to be produced in Canada, which Thales DIS Canada Inc. (Thales) challenged as discriminatory under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).

The Divisional Court found the MTO's decision and request for bids unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the reasonableness standard of review by conducting a de novo assessment instead of focusing on the administrative decision-maker's reasons.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Director's decision was reasonable and that the request for bids was not separately subject to judicial review given the existence of an adequate internal dispute resolution process.

The appellant, P.K., appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference involving his 15-year-old niece.

The appeal raised two grounds: the trial judge's response to a jury question concerning forensic evidence and the instruction given on the complainant's videotaped statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's response to the jury's request for a read-back of expert testimony was appropriate, given the practical difficulties and the lack of material prejudice.

The court also affirmed that the instruction on the s. 715.1 statement was correct, as such statements are admissible for their truth and as part of the in-court testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Johnathan Impey, appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The appeal raised two grounds: the trial judge's response to a jury question regarding the definition of reasonable doubt, and the alleged failure to instruct the jury on how to deal with the complainant's motivation to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's response to the jury's question was appropriate, especially given counsel's joint submission, and that the general instructions on witness credibility were sufficient to address the issue of motive to fabricate.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) appealed a decision by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that granted David Aliko an absolute discharge after he was found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for various offences due to mental disorder.

CAMH sought to set aside the absolute discharge and reinstate a conditional discharge, citing Mr. Aliko's significant deterioration and new criminal charges post-disposition.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence detailing Mr. Aliko's post-discharge behaviour and mental state, which indicated a substantial risk of serious harm to the public without Board supervision.

The court found it was in the interests of justice to admit this evidence.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) brought a motion under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss Paul Alexander Robson's motion to review a prior decision of a motion judge.

The LSO argued that Robson's motion was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that the LSO failed to provide sufficient background documents, such as Robson's original motion materials or proposed notice of motion for leave to appeal, which were necessary to determine if the motion was, on its face, an abuse of process.

Consequently, the LSO's Rule 2.1 request was dismissed without costs, and Robson was ordered to perfect his motion for review within ten days.

The appellant, A.B., appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board that did not permit him to work unsupervised in the community.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board's decision, noting that the Board's conclusion was justified by the psychiatric evidence and the appellant's changed circumstances, including a subsequent criminal conviction while under a Board order.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, David Griffith, appealed his convictions for possession for the purposes of trafficking and possessing proceeds of crime, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence obtained in breach of his Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(b)).

The trial judge found breaches but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, applying the *Grant* analysis.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the *Grant* analysis, specifically regarding the lawfulness of the pat-down search incident to investigative detention and the application of discoverability.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant, convicted of drug possession and possession for the purposes of trafficking, appealed his convictions.

The appeal raised two main issues: whether the police used excessive force in violation of section 7 of the Charter, and whether evidence seized from the appellant's jacket should have been excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter due to a section 8 breach.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the police force was justified under section 25(4) of the Criminal Code, accepting the trial judge's factual findings regarding the officers' actions.

Regarding the search, the Court agreed with the trial judge that while the search of the jacket violated section 8, the evidence was admissible under section 24(2) due to the likelihood of inevitable discovery.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal from a judgment awarding over $2.5 million in damages to a cyclist injured in a collision with a motor vehicle.

The appellants, the driver and the excess insurer, challenged the trial judge's findings on liability, damages, and costs.

The Court dismissed the appeal on liability, future care, deductions, and contingencies, upholding the trial judge's finding that the driver failed to discharge the reverse onus under the Highway Traffic Act.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the past and future loss of income award, finding a palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's calculation of the pre-collision earning capacity by misinterpreting the currency of expert evidence.

The income loss award was varied to adjust the earning capacity figure to 2022 dollars instead of 2012 dollars.

The appellant, Daniel Tiessen, appealed his conviction for conspiracy to kidnap and related offences, and his three-year sentence.

The conviction appeal challenged the admissibility of intercepted communications, arguing that initial investigative orders (tracking, number reader, data recorder warrants) were improperly made due to inadequate Information to Obtain (ITOs) and that evidence derived from them should have been excised from the wiretap application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, affirming the motion judge's findings that the initial orders met the "reasonable grounds to suspect" standard, the wiretap order met the "reasonable grounds to believe" standard, and the "investigative necessity" requirement was satisfied.

The court found no error in the motion judge's assessment of the ITOs or the trial judge's sentence.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and invitation to sexual touching, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention and transfer to a medium security hospital.

The appellant argued the Board erred in rejecting the evidence of his psychotherapist and in finding he remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was open to the Board to prefer the considerable body of expert evidence from other witnesses, and that the Board's disposition was reasonable.