David Watt

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm, and his sentence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, as the court found no error in the trial judge's credibility findings regarding the complainant.

The sentence appeal was allowed because the original sentence for sexual assault exceeded the statutory maximum of 10 years.

The net sentence was varied to six years, 10 months, and two days.

The appellant, Sivanesan Veerasingam, appealed his convictions for luring a person under 16 and procuring sexual services of a person under 18, and the dismissal of his entrapment application.

The charges stemmed from "Project Raphael" a police undercover operation where an officer posed as a 15-year-old on a website.

Text exchanges indicated the appellant's awareness of the minor's age.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the conviction appeal, ruling that evidence from the entrapment hearing could not be used to challenge the initial conviction.

The court also dismissed the entrapment appeal, finding that the police scheme did not prevent the appellant from taking reasonable steps to verify age during communication, and the offence was complete upon communication, not at the hotel meeting.

The appellant, Duane Jeffrey Anderson, appealed a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), arguing he did not understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, holding that despite the absence of a formal plea comprehension inquiry (as the plea was "not guilty"), the amplified record, including affidavits from the appellant and trial counsel, demonstrated that the appellant's participation was voluntary, informed, and unequivocal.

The court found that trial counsel had thoroughly explained the NCRMD process, its implications, and the procedural steps, and the trial judge's concluding colloquy with the appellant confirmed his understanding.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences and breaches of weapons prohibition orders, his designation as a dangerous offender, and his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury charge was within the trial judge's discretion.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the court found no error in the application of the totality principle.

However, the dangerous offender designation was set aside due to a legal error: the trial judge failed to consider the appellant's future treatment prospects and intractability at the designation stage, as required by the Criminal Code and clarified by R. v. Boutilier.

The court substituted the dangerous offender designation with a long-term offender designation, while leaving the determinate sentence and long-term supervision order intact.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of the respondent on charges including pointing a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, and attempted murder.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for the acquittals, specifically by not addressing credibility and reliability issues related to the officers' testimony and not explaining how the evidence led to reasonable doubt despite compelling forensic evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittals were set aside, and a new trial was ordered on the disputed counts.

The appellant, Bradley Cable, appealed a disposition from the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, following a finding of not criminally responsible for various offences.

Cable argued the Board erred in not considering a conditional discharge as the least onerous option, despite conceding he posed a substantial public safety risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was amply supported by evidence, including psychiatric reports indicating severe untreated mental health issues and a high risk of reoffending, and that there was no air of reality to the possibility of a conditional discharge.

The appellant, convicted of second-degree murder, appealed his conviction and sentence.

The appeal challenged the admissibility of his in-court statements, the trial judge's refusal to leave self-defence and provocation with the jury, and the 17-year parole ineligibility period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding the statements were not protected, not analogous to an aborted guilty plea, and the appellant had an operating mind.

It also upheld the trial judge's finding that there was no air of reality to self-defence or provocation.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed, as the parole ineligibility period was deemed fit given the brutality of the murder.

The appellant, J.L., appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference against his daughter, C.L. The appeal challenged the trial judge's admission of three out-of-court statements made by C.L.: two under the principled exception to the hearsay rule and one under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the video-recorded statement was not made within a reasonable time and not adopted by the complainant, and that the first two statements failed the necessity and threshold reliability criteria, particularly regarding potential influence from the mother and alternative explanations for the abuse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the hearsay exceptions, including the assessment of reasonable time, adoption, necessity (distinguishing from cumulative hearsay), and substantive reliability (ruling out speculative alternative explanations and addressing concerns about maternal influence).

The appellant was convicted by a jury of possession of various controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, following the execution of a search warrant at an apartment and storage unit.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge gave an unfair and unbalanced jury charge and erred in refusing to hear a mid-trial Charter application challenging the storage unit search.

He also appealed his five-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury instructions adequate and the refusal of the untimely Charter application justified.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, save for setting aside the victim surcharge.

Maxwell Johnson was convicted of trafficking cocaine, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

He was initially sentenced to six months' imprisonment concurrently.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in applying sentencing ranges for street-level trafficking to a 'share trafficking' scenario and in reducing the weight given to his first offender status.

The Court of Appeal found errors in principle regarding the application of sentencing ranges and the consideration of first offender status.

The appeal was allowed, and a six-month conditional sentence was substituted for the original custodial sentence, to be served concurrently, followed by one year of probation.

The appellant, Lerrell Stennett, appealed his convictions for dangerous operation and impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, and an ancillary victim surcharge order.

The accident involved the appellant losing control of his vehicle on a wet highway, resulting in multiple collisions and serious injuries to himself and passengers.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty based on circumstantial evidence of excessive speed for the conditions and a projected blood alcohol concentration indicating impairment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction, finding no misapprehension of evidence, no improper inference from consequences, and no circular reasoning.

The court allowed the appeal from sentence only to set aside the victim surcharges, as the regime was later ruled unconstitutional.

The appellant, S.P., appealed convictions for sexual offences against his daughters, which occurred approximately 40 years prior.

The appeal was based on alleged errors in the trial judge's credibility analysis and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant also appealed his sentence, but this was later abandoned.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material inconsistencies in the complainants' evidence, upholding the trial judge's credibility findings, and rejecting the ineffective assistance claim and the admission of fresh evidence.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of "employer" under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) following a fatal workplace incident.

The City of Greater Sudbury, which had contracted out road repairs, was acquitted at trial and on first appeal, with courts finding it was neither an "employer" nor "constructor." The Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed, holding that the City was indeed an "employer" under OHSA because its own employees (inspectors) were present and performing tasks at the project site, satisfying the first branch of the "employer" definition.

The case was remitted to the appeal court to consider the City's due diligence defence, which had not been addressed by the appeal judge.

The appellant appealed convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in his credibility assessment by impermissibly using the absence of evidence of a motive to fabricate as proof of no motive, and by making blanket credibility findings without sufficient analysis of individual counts or conflicting evidence.

The court applied the curative proviso to one count (Count 6) but not others.

The appeal was allowed for four counts, with a new trial ordered for three and an acquittal entered for one.

The appellant, Kevin Faudar, appealed his convictions for various firearms offences, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

His grounds included a conflict of interest due to counsel's prior representation of a key witness (X.Y.), improper advice to testify, and general incompetence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no actual conflict of interest that impaired trial fairness, that the decision for the appellant to testify was a reasonable strategic choice given the strong circumstantial evidence of constructive possession, and that counsel's overall performance did not fall below the standard of reasonableness or result in a miscarriage of justice.

The court affirmed the convictions and the sentence.

The appellant, Clayton Freamo, appealed his conviction for sexual interference, alleging a faulty credibility analysis by the trial judge.

The appellant argued that the trial judge incorrectly approached the credibility assessment as a "credibility contest" and failed to adequately explain inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons, when read holistically, demonstrated a correct understanding and application of the burden of proof and a careful assessment of the evidence, including the selective belief of parts of the complainant's testimony.

A police officer, Remo Romano, appealed his conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and his eight-month custodial sentence.

The conviction arose from a fatal collision where he struck and killed a pedestrian while driving at excessive speed during undercover surveillance.

The appellant argued the trial judge improperly focused the jury on the consequences of his driving rather than the manner of driving, and failed to adequately explain the "marked departure" standard for mens rea.

He also sought a reduction in sentence or a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the jury charge was appropriate and the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, even considering the newfound availability of conditional sentences for this offence.

The appellant, Todd Crowe, appealed his total sentence of twelve years imprisonment for drug trafficking and weapons offences.

He argued that the concurrent four-year sentences for possession of proceeds exceeded the statutory maximum and that the sentencing judge failed to properly apply Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal reduced the sentences for possession of proceeds to 18 months concurrently, as conceded by the Crown, but dismissed the appeal regarding the Gladue principles, finding no error in the sentencing judge's application or the weight given to the factors.

The court also denied the admission of fresh evidence.

Matthew Bilodeau appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his conditional discharge but reduced his reporting obligation, seeking an absolute discharge.

He argued the Board's finding that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and speculative.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion reasonable and grounded in evidence, particularly concerning the severity of the index offence, the need for active monitoring due to his mental disorder, and the risks associated with medication non-compliance and the transition to a new therapeutic team.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay proceedings in a sexual assault case after the complainant failed to re-attend for cross-examination.

The trial judge inferred the complainant was avoiding cross-examination and found the respondent's bail conditions "torturous" leading to the stay.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in refusing the Crown's request for a brief adjournment without applying the proper legal test (Darville factors) and made factual findings unsupported by evidence.

The Court emphasized that a stay of proceedings is an extreme remedy reserved for the "clearest of cases" and that less drastic alternatives were available.

The appeal was allowed, the stay of proceedings was set aside, and a new trial was ordered before a different judge.