David H. Doherty

The applicant applied to reopen her appeal from a 1998 conviction for defrauding Legal Aid, which had been dismissed on its merits in 2000.

She alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and a conflict of interest involving her former junior counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that its jurisdiction to reopen an appeal is generally limited to cases not heard on the merits.

Assuming Civil Rule 59.06 could apply, the court found no merit to the applicant's allegations and no concern of a miscarriage of justice.

The Crown appealed a sentence of 90 days' intermittent custody imposed on the respondent for two counts of sexual interference involving a young child.

The Crown argued the trial judge placed too little weight on aggravating factors and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the sentence was at the low end of the range, the trial judge did not err in principle and the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference involving a young girl who lived next door.

He argued the trial judge failed to consider the implausibility of the complainant's evidence and applied a harsher standard of scrutiny to the defence evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge carefully reviewed the evidence, reasonably believed the complainant, and applied the same level of scrutiny to all witnesses.

The respondents, a father and son, were convicted of arson and fraud after intentionally causing an explosion and fire at their family business to defraud an insurance company of $200,000.

The trial judge imposed conditional sentences of two years less a day.

The Crown appealed the sentences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that conditional sentences are generally inappropriate for serious arson offences, especially given the planning, use of accelerants, and danger posed to adjoining occupants and firefighters.

The court substituted sentences of 12 months in custody.

The appellants appealed their convictions for three arson-related offences.

They argued they lacked a sufficient evidentiary record and that their trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellants had consented to their appellate counsel's removal and were responsible for preparing the appeal, and found no evidence to support the ineffective assistance claim.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in relying on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness who had a self-interest in implicating him.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was aware of the need for caution and properly weighed the witness's inconsistencies, timing of statements, and relationship with the appellant.

The court concluded the verdict was not unreasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent pled guilty to conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and was sentenced to two years less a day, plus probation, with 12 months' credit for pre-trial custody.

The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing the respondent played a more significant role than a mere courier.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the respondent was involved in the distribution of multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine and negotiating prices.

The sentence was varied to four years, with credit for pre-trial custody and time served on parole.

The appellant appealed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The Crown conceded that the length of the sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal accepted the concession and reduced the conditional sentence to twelve months.

The appellant appealed a ten-month sentence imposed for various breach offences, impaired driving, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The appellant, a second-time offender, continued to consume and sell marijuana while on bail and later while subject to a conditional sentence order.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was not unfit given the appellant's unrepentant actions and failure to seek treatment previously.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision allowing the Attorney General to assess their legal bills under the Solicitors Act.

The Attorney General was required to pay the bills under a 'Fisher' order, which provided that Legal Aid Ontario would vet and approve them.

The Court of Appeal held that this vetting did not preclude an assessment under s. 9 of the Solicitors Act.

The court also agreed that 'special circumstances' existed under s. 11 of the Act, given the trial judge's comments and the Attorney General's inability to move for an assessment before the trial concluded.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The mother appealed a motion judge's order finding her in contempt for failing to encourage the child's relationship with the father and taking active steps to discourage it.

The mother argued the motion judge erred by proceeding despite dispute resolution clauses and her request for a stay due to the father's financial non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge did not err in proceeding with the urgent matter involving high conflict and alleged parental alienation.

The Court also upheld the contempt finding, noting there was ample evidence, including the mother's own admissions, to support it.

The appellant appealed a finding of civil contempt and a 75-day sentence for failing to deliver jewellery and artwork to the respondent pursuant to a court order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt finding, noting the motion judge implicitly rejected the appellant's claim that he did not possess the items.

However, the Court varied the sentence, setting aside the 30-day term for the jewellery due to lack of clarity on the extent of the breach, and reducing the 45-day term for the artwork to 15 days, adding a coercive clause allowing the appellant to avoid or shorten the sentence by delivering the specified items.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision finding that it had unreasonably withheld consent to the assignment of a commercial lease.

The application judge found as a fact that the landlord's sole interest in refusing consent was to secure a higher rent because the current rent was below market value.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that this finding of fact was open to the application judge, though it noted that a demand for a rent increase is not always an unreasonable response to an assignment request.

The respondent was acquitted at trial of having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

The trial judge found that the respondent had started his car with a remote starter, was scraping ice off the window, had the keys in his pocket, and intended to drive away, but concluded there was no present danger because he had not entered the vehicle.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court upheld the acquittal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact compelled the legal conclusion that the respondent was in care or control, as his conduct created an obvious risk of danger.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision ordering his surrender to the United States for prosecution.

The applicant argued that the surrender unjustifiably infringed his section 6 Charter rights, that the Crown's conduct regarding plea bargains and stayed charges constituted an abuse of process under section 7, and that the Minister failed to properly consider extenuating family circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the Minister's decision reasonable and no abuse of process by the Crown.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in a medium secure unit.

The appellant and amicus curiae argued the Board erred by not ordering a hybrid disposition that would allow the hospital to move him to minimum security at its discretion, as recommended by psychiatrists.

The Court of Appeal held the Board was entitled to reject the psychiatric evidence and require an early review hearing instead.

The appeal was dismissed, but the Board was ordered to convene the requested early review hearing forthwith.

The appellant, an adult, was convicted of robbery with a weapon and use of an imitation firearm after acting as a lookout or driver for five young offenders who robbed a gas station.

He appealed his convictions and his 18-month sentence, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, failed to give a Vetrovec caution for a defence witness, and imposed a disparate sentence compared to his co-accused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of party liability, and concluding the sentence disparity was justified by the appellant's adult status and conviction for the firearm offence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, and his designation as a dangerous offender.

The offences involved the severe beating and sexual assault of his former common-law partner.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the court upheld the finding that the appellant, a diagnosed psychopath with a history of domestic abuse, posed a substantial risk of reoffending that could not be reasonably controlled in the community.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of sexually assaulting two young brothers.

During the trial, a Crown witness testified that his son had called the appellant a 'rapist pedophile'.

The trial judge refused the appellant's application for a mistrial, opting instead to give a mid-trial curative instruction to the jury.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in refusing the mistrial and in failing to repeat the caution in his closing instructions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's exercise of discretion was not clearly wrong and the mid-trial instruction was sufficient to remove the potential prejudice.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of assault and his sentence of 12 months' imprisonment consecutive to a sentence he was already serving.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in her credibility assessment and that the Crown's cross-examination was abusive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings, which were supported by police observations of bite marks, and concluding the cross-examination was relevant.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit given the domestic context, the injuries, and the appellant's lengthy criminal record.