David Watt

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault with a weapon, dangerous operation of a vehicle, possession of cocaine, and two counts of possession of dangerous weapons.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to adequately address weaknesses in eyewitness identification evidence and by misapprehending evidence regarding identification.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge could have expanded his discussion of identification evidence frailties, the overwhelming force of other evidence—including the appellant's own admission of being the driver of the fleeing vehicle, the presence of baseball bats with blood in that vehicle, and the vehicle matching the description provided by assault witnesses—established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a hybrid disposition ordered by the Ontario Review Board that imposed a detention order requiring detention on the Secure Forensic Unit with discretion to transfer to the General Forensic Unit.

The sole ground of appeal was that the Board failed to consider the appellant's liberty interest when imposing this condition rather than ordering immediate transfer to the General Forensic Unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reasons, read as a whole, were faithful to the requirements established in Pinet v. St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for drug trafficking.

The trial judge had imposed a sentence based on a finding that the appellant had taken no steps toward rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge materially misapprehended the evidence, as the appellant had in fact taken significant steps toward rehabilitation both before and after his release on bail pending appeal.

The court allowed the appeal in part, varying the sentence from the trial judge's decision to eight months imprisonment while maintaining the probation term and setting aside the victim surcharge.

The appellants were convicted of sexual assault of a 16-year-old complainant who was intoxicated during a camping trip.

The appellants appealed their convictions on the grounds that the trial judge erred in his analysis of consent and capacity to consent.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to separately consider the issues of consent and capacity, and failed to apply the proper legal framework for determining incapacity due to intoxication.

The court held that the trial judge appeared to equate any degree of impairment with incapacity, which is an error of law.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 16, 2018.

The appellant challenged the Board's finding of a direct connection between his substance abuse and his psychotic state at the time of the index offences, as well as the Board's conclusion that a significant threat to public safety remained.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it was reasonable for the Board to rely on the treating psychiatrist's opinion and to impose a conditional discharge given the appellant's progress balanced against ongoing risks.

The appellant was convicted of possession of a firearm and threatening the complainant.

She appealed on the ground that the trial judge erred in failing to allow the defence to advance a theory that could have raised a reasonable doubt as to her guilt.

The trial judge excluded evidence that two unidentified men had taken a backpack from the appellant's home, which could have supported the defence theory that the complainant, not the appellant, possessed the firearm.

The Court of Appeal found that there was sufficient evidence independent of the backpack's contents to give the defence an air of reality and that the jury should have been permitted to consider this alternative theory.

Both convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board that declined to provide a term allowing for community living at the hospital's discretion.

The Board instead included a generous daily pass provision at the hospital's discretion.

The Court of Appeal found the order reflected the evidence of the treating psychiatrist and hospital team, and that the daily pass provision adequately addressed concerns regarding the appellant's potential deterioration.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants were convicted of importing cocaine after returning from vacation in St. Lucia with 1.4 kilograms of cocaine each.

They appealed their convictions on the basis that the trial judge misapplied the burden of proof regarding the defence of duress and erroneously required corroboration of the evidence.

The appellants argued duress was the only defence at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge made a misstatement regarding the burden of proof, this was a simple error that did not affect the outcome when the reasons were read as a whole.

The defence failed because the trial judge did not believe the evidence of the testifying appellant and found no reasonable doubt regarding the threats and assaults, and further found that the appellants had a safe avenue of escape once within Canadian jurisdiction.

The appellant was convicted of production of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of the proceeds of crime following a trial before a Superior Court judge sitting without a jury.

He was sentenced to five years imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the issuance of telewarrants used to search two properties, the trial judge's refusal to permit cross-examination of the ITO affiant, the validity of the search warrants, and the reasonableness of the verdict.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal sentence, arguing the trial judge misstated the defence position on bail credit and failed to consider rehabilitative prospects and the principle of restraint.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction and, while granting leave to appeal sentence, dismissed the appeal from sentence.

The appellant was convicted of breaking and entering in connection with a bank vault theft in Burlington.

He appealed on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his trial counsel failed to bring a Carosella application for a stay of proceedings based on lost police booking video evidence.

The appellant also appealed his sentence of two and a half years' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that a Carosella application would have had no chance of success given the innocent explanation for the loss of evidence and the appellant's lack of diligence in requesting it.

The court also found that the mid-trial instruction provided by the trial judge was actually more beneficial to the defence than the standard lost evidence instruction.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was dismissed as fit and free from error.

The appellant was convicted of producing marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Police executed a valid search warrant at a bungalow where a grow-op was operating and seized a large quantity of marijuana.

The appellant was arrested as she approached the bungalow, and a house key was seized from her incident to arrest.

The appellant was delayed over three hours in accessing counsel in breach of s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded the s. 10(b) breach.

The appellant argued the breach tainted not only the seizure of the house key but also the drugs seized under the search warrant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the seizure of drugs under the valid search warrant was causally, temporally, and contextually distinct from the arrest and subsequent s. 10(b) breach.

Regarding the house key, while subject to potential exclusion, the Grant factors favoured admission as the breach was not strategic or serious, the impact was minimal given other admissible evidence, and society had an interest in trial on the merits.

The appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking based primarily on a police officer's identification of the appellant as the driver of a minivan that sped past the officer at 50 km/h from a distance of 15 feet.

The officer's fleeting observation lasted only seconds and was limited to describing the driver as an Asian male with dark hair.

The appellant's wallet containing an OHIP card with photograph and an inhaler were found in the vehicle, along with seven large garbage bags of marijuana.

The trial judge found these items, combined with the officer's identification, sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the conviction unreasonable and unsupported by evidence.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence for importing heroin and conspiracy to import heroin.

At the hearing, the appellant abandoned the conviction appeal.

The sentence appeal concerned a 15-year custodial sentence (less credit for 200 days presentence custody) imposed for conspiracy to import heroin and a concurrent 12-year sentence for the substantive importation count.

The sentencing judge found the appellant was part of a broad ongoing conspiracy to import heroin on multiple occasions between October 2010 and March 2011, involving the importation of 2.5 kilograms of heroin valued between $200,000 and $750,600.

The appellant played a significant role well beyond that of a courier, recruiting and organizing multiple couriers to travel to African countries to facilitate importations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no error in law or principle and concluding the sentence was fit.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code concerning the disposition of an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant challenged the Ontario Review Board's decision to maintain a detention order rather than grant a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued his risk could be managed safely in the community with a conditional discharge and resort to the Mental Health Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it was not unreasonable given the evidence of the appellant's lack of insight into his mental illness, continued cannabis use, limited protective effect of anti-psychotic medication, and risk factors including occasional violence.

The appellant leased commercial premises from the respondent with a right to renew for five years.

The appellant sublet the premises to a third party without reserving the last day of the head lease term.

When the appellant attempted to exercise its renewal option, the respondent claimed the appellant had forfeited its rights through an assignment.

The application judge failed to resolve this central issue and instead found a breach of contract with no damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 3 of the Commercial Tenancies Act permits a sublease even without reserving the last day of the head lease term, provided there is sufficient evidence that the parties did not intend an assignment.

The sublease language clearly demonstrated the parties' intent to preserve the appellant's renewal rights.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict awarding approximately $186,000 in damages for a motor vehicle accident, significantly less than their claim of over $10 million and the respondent's pre-trial settlement offer of $500,000.

The appellants argued that the jury improperly assessed the plaintiff's credibility through evidence of his criminal record and unlawful conduct, and that the jury was misled on the test for causation and the standard of proof for future damages.

The Court of Appeal rejected all arguments, finding that the trial judge properly exercised her gatekeeping function, correctly charged the jury on credibility and causation, and that the jury's verdict was reasonable.

The appellants recovered nothing after costs were set off.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that quashed a conviction under the Lobbying Act.

The respondent, a former senior advisor to the Prime Minister, became executive director of the Canada School of Energy and Environment (CSEE) within the five-year post-employment lobbying prohibition period.

He engaged in communications with Industry Canada officials regarding the extension of an uncommitted portion of a $15 million grant to prevent forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal held that the Lobbying Act was unambiguous and that the respondent's communications constituted prohibited lobbying activity respecting the awarding of a financial benefit.

The Court reinstated the conviction, rejecting the appeal judge's reliance on irrelevant factors such as who initiated the communications and whether government officials considered the conduct to be lobbying.

The appellants appealed from an order of the application judge that determined the respondents had not substantially interfered with an easement in favour of the appellants, assuming the easement to be valid.

The Court of Appeal found the evidentiary record before the application judge was insufficient to support any conclusions on the issues.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the application judge's order, and remitted the matter to the Superior Court of Justice for a fresh hearing or trial.

The court identified numerous unresolved questions regarding the validity of the easement, including issues relating to the title history, the precise location and dimensions of the easement, compliance with part lot subdivision control provisions, and whether the respondents' actions constituted substantial interference with the easement rights.

The Crown sought summary dismissal of an appeal from a Superior Court decision that had dismissed an application for certiorari challenging a Justice of the Peace's refusal to issue process on a private criminal information.

The Court of Appeal summarily dismissed the appeal on three grounds: the appeal was frivolous and devoid of merit; the appellant was a vexatious litigant subject to a court order prohibiting him from instituting proceedings in Superior Court without leave; and the appellant lacked standing to appeal as the underlying offences were indictable, giving him no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Two appellants were convicted of sexual assault and related offences following a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appellants appealed their convictions on two grounds: (1) the trial judge erred in finding that text messages and photographs had not been properly authenticated and thus had no probative value, and (2) the trial judge misapprehended evidence relating to photographs upon which one complainant was cross-examined.

The appellants sought to adduce fresh evidence from a computer forensic examiner regarding the authenticity and integrity of the electronic documents and from trial counsel regarding due diligence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge applied an overly stringent authentication standard, misapprehended material evidence, and that the fresh evidence satisfied the conditions for admission on appeal.

A new trial was ordered.