David M. Paciocco

This appeal was dismissed as abandoned due to the appellant's failure to appear for the hearing, despite being notified multiple times.

The court was also informed that the appellant had previously failed to attend his criminal trial, which led to the underlying application for habeas corpus, and that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

This appeal concerned the enforceability of two significant loans, secured by promissory notes, against the estate of Dennis Chedli and his wife, Anna Chedli.

The motion judge had dismissed the claims, finding the notes either repaid, statute-barred, or void due to material alteration without assent.

The Court of Appeal partially allowed the appeal.

It found that the first promissory note, signed by both Dennis and Anna Chedli, was not repaid as a new loan, and that there was sufficient corroborative evidence (payments and discussions) that Dennis Chedli assented to its conversion to a demand note, making it enforceable against his estate.

However, the first note remained void and unenforceable against Anna Chedli and the collateral mortgage, as she did not assent to its alteration.

The second promissory note, signed by Dennis Chedli alone, was found to be statute-barred as there was no corroborating evidence of his assent to its conversion to a demand note.

The appellant, Roger Bristol, sought leave to appeal a total sentence of ten years imposed following convictions for 32 counts of break and enter, 34 counts of failure to comply with probation, and two counts of attempted break and enter.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave and reduced the sentence to seven years.

The appellate court found that the sentencing judge erred by mischaracterizing the offences as "home invasion robberies" failing to properly weigh the appellant's mental health challenges and their impact on moral blameworthiness, and failing to give proper effect to the "jump principle." The court also considered a "Duncan credit" for time spent in lockdown during pre-sentence custody.

C.C. appealed his 6-year global sentence for human trafficking, assault, and child pornography, arguing for a reduction based on harsh pre-trial bail conditions (Downes credit) and fresh evidence of rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised discretion regarding bail conditions and that the fresh evidence, while commendable, did not warrant a sentence reduction given the gravity of the offences.

The appellant sought leave to appeal an eight-year total sentence for impaired driving causing death, criminal negligence causing death, and failing to comply with probation.

The appeal raised issues regarding credit for pre-trial incarceration conditions, house arrest bail, and the application of the parity principle compared to a co-accused.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's sentencing, particularly given the appellant's impairment, criminal record, and probation status, which justified a higher sentence than his co-accused.

T.C. appealed convictions for sexual exploitation, sexual assault, and sexual interference.

The appeal raised three grounds: the trial judge's refusal to admit certain emails as evidence of fabrication, improper emphasis on DNA evidence in jury instructions, and an erroneous answer to a jury question regarding a test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary ruling, no improper emphasis in jury instructions, and a proper response to the jury's question.

The appellant appealed convictions for multiple firearm and drug-related offences, alleging errors by the trial judge regarding a s. 8 Charter application (warrantless cell phone tracking and search incident to arrest) and the admission of expert evidence on drug pricing and jargon.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The majority found the warrantless cell phone tracking justified by exigent circumstances and the expert evidence properly admitted.

While a concurring judge found the search incident to arrest unconstitutional due to a lack of objective grounds, the evidence was deemed admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter, considering the seriousness of the charges and reliability of the evidence.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to strike its statement of defence and counterclaim.

The appellant had repeatedly failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, ignored communications from opposing counsel, and breached a consent order requiring the delivery of an affidavit of documents and payment of costs.

Applying the principles from Falcon Lumber, the Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant's overall failure to participate in the litigation process warranted the extreme remedy of striking its pleadings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Jeffrey Dodman, sought leave to appeal his 12-month custodial sentence for robbery and use of an imitation firearm.

The appeal focused on the calculation of "Downes credits" for pre-trial bail conditions, the appropriateness of a conditional sentence, the impact of post-sentencing events (including COVID-19 risks), and the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence for imitation firearm use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge's calculation of Downes credits was a reasonable exercise of discretion, a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the seriousness of the crime, and post-sentencing events did not warrant interference.

The court also declined to rule on the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum or delay the decision pending legislative changes, as the imposed sentence was deemed fit regardless.

The appellant, Matthew Moreira, sought leave to appeal his sentence for manslaughter and robbery.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave, finding that the sentencing judge erred in determining the factual basis for the manslaughter conviction and in assessing the appellant's degree of fault, and also materially misapprehended evidence regarding pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan credit).

The Court set aside the 12-year manslaughter sentence, substituting a 10-year sentence, while upholding the 1-year consecutive sentence for robbery.

The total global sentence was reduced from 13 years to 11 years, resulting in a net sentence of 6 years and 5 months after pre-sentence custody credit.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed on the respondent, Joern Scholz, for fraud over $5,000.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in principle by imposing a sentence outside the established range for major frauds and by failing to follow the proper analytical process for conditional sentences.

The court also found that the trial judge improperly considered the conduct of an OSC investigator as a mitigating factor for the convicted offence.

The appeal was allowed, the conditional sentence was set aside, and a three-year term of imprisonment was imposed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for violent offences against intimate partners, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

He argued the ORB erred in finding him a significant threat and in failing to grant an absolute or conditional discharge, emphasizing a four-year period of stability while on bail.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ORB's decision, finding it reasonably concluded the appellant posed a significant threat due to his psychiatric history, ongoing symptoms, medication non-compliance, and impaired insight.

The court also found that a detention order was necessary given the inadequacy of the Mental Health Act to manage his risk, and that the ORB had implicitly considered and rejected a conditional discharge.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of section 18.1 of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, regarding court approval of settlements in forfeiture proceedings.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought approval for a settlement with an interested party (Rosa Norwood) for a payment from seized property proceeds, without a prior judicial determination that the property was tainted by unlawful activity.

The appellants (Michael Norwood's Estate and 947014 Ontario Inc.) argued this was an error.

The Court of Appeal held that a "settlement in relation to a proceeding under this Act" must relate to in rem property interests, which necessitates a prior finding that the property is proceeds or instruments of unlawful activity.

The court found the motion judge erred in approving the settlement without such a finding, as it purported to settle in rem interests of others without their rights being displaced.

The appeal was allowed, and the settlement approval order was set aside.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario following an appeal that proceeded in writing.

The court awarded costs of $6,500, including disbursements and taxes, to the respondent, The University of Toronto.

The court noted that the appeal issues were not complex and largely replicated submissions made at first instance.

Helen Tolias, found not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition that ordered her detention.

The Board had conducted the disposition review hearing by videoconference without her consent and in her absence.

The Court of Appeal found this to be a jurisdictional error, rendering the Board's disposition null and void, and rejected the Crown's argument that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's disposition was set aside, and a new hearing was ordered.

The court also varied a previous disposition to allow the appellant to remain at a facility closer to her family.

The appellant, S.S., appealed a Superior Court decision that denied him a preliminary inquiry.

S.S. was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference, offences whose maximum penalties were increased after the alleged commission date but before his election.

The central issue was whether entitlement to a preliminary inquiry under s. 535 of the Criminal Code, which requires an offence punishable by 14 years or more, should be determined by the penalty at the time of the offence or at the time of the election.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the relevant maximum penalty is that which applied at the time of the offence, benefiting the accused under s. 11(i) of the Charter and s. 43(d) of the Interpretation Act.

The court also rejected the appellant's attempt to waive his Charter right to the lesser punishment to qualify for a preliminary inquiry.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, convicted of firearms offences and breach of recognizance following a shooting incident, appealed his convictions and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the admission or assessment of witness evidence, that the verdict was reasonable given the strong circumstantial evidence, and that the trial judge properly rejected the self-defence argument.

The court granted leave to appeal the sentence but ultimately dismissed the sentence appeal, concluding that the eight-year custodial sentence was fit, balancing mitigating factors with the appellant's prior firearms offence and the dangerous nature of discharging a weapon in a populated area.

Michele Fiorilli appealed his convictions for four counts of fraud related to two series of real estate transactions, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The transactions involved fraudulently obtained mortgage funds from the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), with losses ultimately borne by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).

The appellant alleged counsel prevented him from testifying, lost crucial evidence, failed to raise a defence theory, failed to pursue disclosure, and incompetently discredited witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish the factual, performance, or prejudice components of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge erred in finding reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and search.

The appeal raised issues regarding the reliability of an officer's smell evidence, the interpretation of "neutral" observed behaviours, and the consideration of a neighbourhood's character in establishing grounds for arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge was entitled to accept the officer's evidence and that the cumulative behaviours, combined with the smell of marijuana, provided objectively reasonable grounds for arrest and search.

The court also clarified that while presence in a high-crime area alone is insufficient for grounds, it did not undermine the arrest in this case given other factors.

Zachary Barton was convicted by a jury of firearms-related offences.

Police found a semi-automatic handgun during a warrantless search in a common hallway planter, and later ammunition and a bullet-proof vest during a warranted search of his apartment.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in concluding the handgun was not obtained in a manner that infringed his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the handgun was unconstitutionally obtained due to its causal, contextual, and temporal links to the unlawful police conduct.

As the trial judge had not fully determined the validity of the search warrant after excising the unconstitutionally obtained evidence, the Court of Appeal set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial on all charges.