David M. Reeve

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for assault, raising three grounds: that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the nature and extent of the complainant's injury, that the trial judge erred by commenting on the appellant's review of Crown disclosure in assessing credibility, and that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient.

The appeal court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual determinations, holding that the trial judge was entitled to reject the appellant's evidence that the blow was accidental and to prefer the complainant's evidence, which was corroborated by the attending officer's observation of blood on her face.

Any minor factual errors in the narrative did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

This decision concerns the trial of Tamaal Japp and Moses Tesfay for first-degree murder in the shooting death of Uchenna Achioso.

The court reviews the evidence, including agreed statements of fact, expert testimony, and the credibility of key witnesses.

The main issues are the identity of the accused and the extent of their criminal liability.

The court finds both accused guilty of manslaughter, not murder, concluding that while they participated in an unlawful act leading to death, the evidence does not establish the intent or planning required for murder.

The appellants were convicted by a jury of second degree murder following the shooting death of the victim in a restaurant washroom.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in admitting surveillance video of the appellants at a motel with a firearm on the night prior to the shooting as prior discreditable conduct evidence, and whether the jury was properly instructed as to its permissible uses.

The majority of the Court of Appeal had found no error in the admission or instruction, while the dissenting judge would have ordered new trials.

A majority of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal, affirming the convictions.

The appellants, Thulani Chizanga and Shamar Meredith, appealed their convictions for second-degree murder and Mr. Meredith appealed his sentence.

The main issues on appeal included the admissibility of a "Super 8 Video" as prior discreditable conduct evidence, the trial judge's jury instructions on joint enterprise liability, post-offence demeanour evidence, and defence theories, as well as sentencing errors related to aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances.

The majority dismissed all appeals, finding no legal errors in the trial judge's decisions regarding evidence admissibility, jury instructions, or sentencing.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the conviction appeals and ordered a new trial, arguing the Super 8 Video was improperly admitted and instructed upon, particularly concerning its probative value for joint enterprise to kill.

The applicants, Ethan Racanelli and Zachariah Morales, jointly charged with sexual assault, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter for an alleged breach of their s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the Information being sworn to the anticipated trial completion was 28 months and 12 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown argued for subtracting periods of delay due to an electronic disclosure system transition and defence requests for outstanding disclosure.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments, finding that the Crown's delay in providing crucial disclosure (complainants' video statements) was not an exceptional circumstance and that defence requests for such disclosure were legitimate.

The court found the delay prima facie unreasonable and granted a stay of proceedings for both applicants.

The appellant, Brandi Mascarenas, appealed her conviction for importing cocaine.

She had received a controlled delivery of appliances containing cocaine.

At trial, her explanation for her involvement was rejected by the judge, who concluded she was a willing participant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of knowledge, application of circumstantial evidence principles (R. v. Villaroman), or the burden of proof.

The court found the trial judge's reasons, though not lengthy, were adequate.

The appellant, Beverley Bernard, appealed her conviction for importing cocaine.

She claimed she was unaware of the drugs concealed in jars in her suitcase, which a stranger had asked her to bring to Canada.

Her appeal was based on four grounds: the trial judge's failure to conduct a voir dire regarding a Jamaican Patois interpreter, misapprehension of evidence, failure to consider the third branch of W(D), and misapplication of R. v. Villaroman.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the voir dire issue was not pursued at trial, any misapprehension of evidence was immaterial to the ultimate findings, W(D) was correctly applied, and the trial judge's reasoning, when read as a whole, correctly applied Villaroman by concluding the appellant's evidence defied common sense and supported a finding of deliberate ignorance.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and assault involving a child victim between ages 11 and 14.

The respondent had made admissions in a voluntary police statement but denied the allegations at trial.

The trial judge found the respondent's denials not credible and characterized portions of the police statement as a confession to a sexual crime, yet acquitted the respondent.

The appellate court found the trial judge engaged in faulty reasoning, failed to make necessary findings of fact, failed to reconcile conflicting evidence, and provided insufficient reasons for the acquittal.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on all counts.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of attempting to purchase sexual services from a young person through an undercover police sting operation (Project Raphael).

He was sentenced to eight months in jail and two years of probation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction on Charter grounds and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the arrest was lawful and the trial judge properly applied the legal test for objective reasonableness.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence to six months less one day to preserve the appellant's right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division, as a sentence exceeding six months would result in deportation as a permanent resident.

Two appellants were convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence arising from a home invasion in Mississauga.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on DNA evidence, cell phone tower records, Blackberry Messenger text messages, and circumstantial inferences to establish identity.

The appellants challenged their convictions on various grounds, including the reasonableness of the verdicts and the admissibility of hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both conviction appeals, finding the trial judge properly considered the cumulative effect of the evidence and correctly applied exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Both appellants received nine-year sentences; the Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals but allowed the sentence appeals in part by setting aside victim fine surcharges and adjusting presentence custody credits.