David Watt

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).

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.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for past violent offences due to mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing that the ORB's conclusion of significant public safety risk was unsupported and its reasons insufficient.

The Court of Appeal found the ORB's conclusion reasonable, based on evidence of the appellant's major mental illness, lack of insight, intent to stop medication, and unwillingness to abstain from drug use, which posed a substantial risk of decompensation and violent relapse.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the ORB's conditional discharge.

The appellant, Abadula Biya, appealed his conviction and sentence for charges including unauthorized possession of a firearm and ammunition, possession of a Schedule I controlled substance for trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The primary ground of appeal was that the trial judge materially misapprehended the evidence in rejecting the appellant's third-party suspect defence, specifically regarding the time available for a co-accused to hide contraband and his propensity.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge's misapprehension of evidence was material, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered on all counts.

The appellants built a retaining wall on a neighbour's property without a permit from the Credit Valley Conservation Authority.

The neighbour (Lorne Park Estates Association) pleaded guilty to provincial offences related to the wall.

The appellants sought to intervene in the Association's sentencing to argue against the wall's removal, but their application was dismissed by the justice of the peace.

The Superior Court dismissed their certiorari application to quash this decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in denying intervener status, as intervention in quasi-criminal sentencing is rare and it would be unfair to allow third parties to interpose themselves against a joint submission by the Crown and accused.

The appellant sought an order for the production of lockdown records from the Toronto South Detention Centre for use in his sentence appeal.

The respondent consented to the order under s. 683(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, reserving the right to challenge the admissibility of the records as fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the interests of justice warranted the order and directed the production of the specified records.

The respondent, a Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioner, was acquitted of sexually assaulting three clients.

The Crown appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the relevance and probative value of a complainant's evidence regarding a phone call with the respondent, and in her similar fact evidence ruling.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's determination on the reliability of the complainant's evidence was a finding of fact, not an error of law, and therefore not appealable.