David Watt

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for common law severance damages for wrongful dismissal.

He argued that a clause in his employment contract was void because it attempted to contract out of the Employment Standards Act regarding the inclusion of bonuses in termination pay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the clause, read in context, preserved the appellant's statutory entitlements.

The appeal and the respondent's cross-appeal on costs were both dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for offences involving a 12-year-old complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred in applying the W.(D.) test, assessing credibility, and relying on demeanour evidence.

He also argued the trial judge failed to give credit for his restrictive bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed credibility and demeanour.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge appropriately treated the restrictive bail conditions as a mitigating factor in the global sentence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, assault, assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, and weapons dangerous arising from an incident in a crack house.

He argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons, misapprehended evidence, and rendered inconsistent verdicts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons met the required threshold, adequately addressed credibility, and demonstrated a careful consideration of the evidence for each count.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of 26 pounds of raw marijuana found in the trunk of his car.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and search based on an officer smelling raw marijuana, and that the trial judge failed to reconcile conflicting officer testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in relying on the smell evidence to establish grounds for arrest.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in rejecting a conditional sentence given the appellant's antecedents and the quantity of marijuana.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing the trial judge applied unequal scrutiny to the evidence and improperly drew an adverse inference from his right to silence upon arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments were well-reasoned and that the trial judge permissibly considered the inconsistency between the appellant's statement to police and his trial testimony.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime.

He argued that the information to obtain (ITO) the search warrant lacked sufficient reliable evidence and that the trial judge provided inadequate reasons for conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the ITO contained sufficient information from confidential informants and police surveillance to justify the warrant.

The Court also held that despite the trial judge's brevity and misapprehension of a defence concession, the reasons were sufficient for appellate review given the uncontroverted evidence of trafficking indicia.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault.

At trial, he argued the complainant consented, relying on evidence from the complainant's former common law spouse.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, characterizing the issue as mistaken belief in consent and failing to address the spouse's evidence.

The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the courts below fundamentally misunderstood the defence advanced and failed to consider critical evidence, rendering the reasons inadequate for appellate review.

The appellant appealed her convictions for assault with a weapon and aggravated assault, as well as her sentence, following an incident where she punched her spouse, resulting in a ruptured spleen.

The appellant argued that the Crown failed to prove causation beyond a reasonable doubt based on the medical expert's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, noting that scientific proof of causation is not required and common sense inferences may suffice.

The sentence was also upheld as fit.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision that excluded breath test results due to an alleged breach of the informational component of section 10(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appeal judge erred by failing to conduct a meaningful analysis under the Grant framework.

The Court held that any breach was minor, especially since the accused subsequently contacted duty counsel, and that a proper balancing mandated the admission of the evidence.

The trial conviction and sentence were reinstated.

The appellants appealed a committal order for extradition and applied for judicial review of a surrender order.

They were sought for prosecution in Pennsylvania for their role in a human trafficking scheme.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the application for judicial review, rejecting arguments related to ulterior motives, disclosure of witness names, certification, limitation periods, indirect refoulement, double jeopardy, and the need for assurances against persecution.

The Crown appealed acquittals entered after a trial judge quashed a search warrant, found a s. 8 Charter breach, excluded the seized evidence under s. 24(2), and dismissed drug-production charges.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by excising or discounting too much of the information to obtain, since the remaining hydro data, physical indicators of a grow operation, and odour evidence provided sufficient grounds on which the warrant could have issued.

Although the court upheld the finding that use of the telewarrant procedure was not shown to be impracticable within s. 487.1 of the Criminal Code, it rejected the conclusion that a police supervisor had improperly interfered with the issuing justice.

Reapplying the s. 24(2) analysis, the court found the Charter breach not serious, the privacy interest diminished, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits strong.

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

The appellants appealed a decision setting aside a stay of proceedings granted by a Justice of the Peace.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the officer's conduct might have justified a finding of abuse of process, a stay of proceedings was not the only remedy available.

The court emphasized that a stay is a prospective remedy of last resort, and lesser remedies, such as disregarding the officer's testimony or addressing disclosure issues, were sufficient to remove any prejudice.

The appellant challenged convictions for sexual offences against multiple young complainants on the basis that the trial reasons were inadequate, the evidence of the child witnesses was inconsistent, and one complainant's account may have been tainted by social worker involvement before a second video statement.

Applying the appellate framework governing sufficiency of reasons and deference on credibility findings, the court held that the reasons, read in the context of the record and the trial process, adequately explained why the trial judge rejected the defence and accepted the complainants' evidence.

The court found no material misapprehension of the evidence and no reversible error in the treatment of similar fact evidence or the impugned complainant's testimony.

The child pornography convictions were not argued and were left undisturbed.

The sexual interference convictions were stayed under the Kineapple principle, the remainder of the conviction appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal sentence was refused.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences, assaulting a police officer, failing to comply with a recognizance, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended inconsistencies in the police officers' evidence and failed to properly address allegations of police collusion and fabrication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge adequately addressed the inconsistencies and reasonably concluded that the officers did not fabricate their evidence.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a certiorari application seeking removal of his name from the provincial sex offender registry.

The Court of Appeal held that the Criminal Proceedings Rules do not apply to a provincial registry maintained under provincial law.

The application should have been made to the Divisional Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The judge below lacked jurisdiction, so his decision was quashed, and the appeal was also quashed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and disguise with intent, arguing the trial judge erred in finding him guilty as a party to the offences.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge reasonably inferred the appellant's participation and intent from his involvement in planning, wearing a mask, remaining at the scene during the attack, and fleeing with the principal perpetrator.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime, challenging the search warrant for his home.

He argued the trial judge erred in restricting cross-examination of the affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO) and that the ITO lacked sufficient information to justify the warrant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly restricted cross-examination to avoid a fishing expedition and that the corroborated information from a confidential informant, combined with surveillance evidence, provided reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences and his 50-month sentence.

He argued the police used the Highway Traffic Act as a pretext to stop and search his vehicle, violating his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the stop had a valid dual purpose and that the smell of marijuana provided reasonable grounds for arrest.

The court also upheld the admission of evidence under s. 24(2) despite a minor s. 10(b) breach.

On the sentence appeal, the court found the appellant was not entitled to enhanced pre-sentence custody credit because he was on bail and bound by a weapons prohibition at the time of his arrest.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered after the trial judge excluded evidence obtained during a warrantless search of a driver and his vehicle following a traffic stop.

The trial judge found the stop became an unjustified investigative detention and rejected the officers' safety concerns, concluding they were on a 'fishing trip'.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's arguments that the trial judge made an unsupported finding of fact regarding a rolling stop and that his questioning of police witnesses created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of a loaded firearm and assaulting police, arguing that his Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) were violated during a traffic stop.

The trial judge found that while the appellant was arbitrarily detained, he initiated an unjustified assault against the police using excessive force, making the subsequent search that revealed a handgun reasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, her conclusion that there was no opportunity to provide right to counsel, or her refusal to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).