David Watt

The applicant, Nadire Atas, sought to interfere with a prior order of MacPherson J.A. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed her motion, finding no basis to intervene with the previous order.

However, the court granted her an extension of time to perfect her appeal, with the extension expiring 60 days after her release from custody.

The court also clarified its lack of authority to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada and noted that interventions are governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Paul Rousselle appealed his conviction for aggravated assault on a four-month-old infant, Baby L., arguing that the trial judge's reasoning was illogical or irrational.

The medical evidence indicated Baby L. suffered injuries consistent with shaking.

Rousselle had initially denied involvement but later confessed to police and his partner that he shook the baby out of frustration when she wouldn't stop crying.

At trial, he recanted, claiming he lied to police to protect his own child from child protective services.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's decision to accept Rousselle's confessions while rejecting his claims of gentle force was logical and rational, supported by the medical evidence and the circumstances of the confession.

The court also upheld the admission of evidence regarding Rousselle's prior angry reaction to a video game interruption, finding it relevant to his state of mind and not unduly prejudicial.

The appellant, J.H., appealed his conviction for two counts of sexual assault.

The appeal raised five grounds: failure to declare a mistrial due to erroneous reception of uncharged disreputable conduct evidence, improper questioning of the complainant, failure to instruct the jury on prior consistent statements and hearsay, failure to instruct on the distinction between lack of evidence of motive to fabricate and proven absence of motive to fabricate, and failure to provide corrective instructions regarding the Crown's closing address.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding the conviction.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's reasons manifestly insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review, specifically noting a lack of engagement with issues of conditional discharge or expanded community passes.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted Board for a new hearing to consider these issues expeditiously.

The appellant, Richard Korecki, appealed his convictions for 14 personal injury offences against his former domestic partner, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of similar acts involving a former domestic partner.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had correctly applied the governing test for similar act evidence, balancing its probative value against its prejudicial effect, and that her conclusion was not unreasonable.

The appeal from sentence was not pursued and was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant, Eric German Flores, appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the four-year sentence imposed.

The appeal from conviction raised issues regarding the trial judge's instructions to the jury on the use of post-event evidence, specifically the complainant's sexual assault examination and prophylactic treatment, and a text message sent by the appellant.

The appeal from sentence challenged the trial judge's finding that the offence involved a breach of trust.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no prejudice in the jury instructions and that the sentence was within the appropriate range, emphasizing that the appellant took advantage of a vulnerable person.

The victim surcharge imposed at trial was set aside.

Sharon Atkinson, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for arson, appealed the Ontario Review Board's conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge or a new hearing.

The appellant, diagnosed with Prader-Willi syndrome, intellectual disability, and personality disorder, argued the Board erred in finding her a significant threat to public safety and in assessing the sufficiency of civil mechanisms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's finding that the appellant remained a significant threat due to her persistent behavioural issues, high risk of recidivism, and lack of a viable plan for an absolute discharge, concluding that civil mechanisms would be inadequate to manage the risk.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) in 2002, appealed a conditional discharge order issued by the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued that the Board's finding of a "significant threat to the safety of the public" was unreasonable and that the Board misapprehended the sufficiency of available civil mechanisms to manage his risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion on "significant threat" to be within the range of reasonable outcomes, considering factors such as the appellant's major mental illness, serious index offences, lack of insight, and stated intention to discontinue medication if absolutely discharged.

The second ground of appeal regarding civil mechanisms was not pressed.

The respondent, an undischarged bankrupt, discovered a potential professional negligence claim against his deceased wife's insurance agent.

He commenced an action after his discharge, but the cause of action had vested in his trustee in bankruptcy.

The motion judge granted an order nunc pro tunc regularizing the proceeding.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge lacked authority to grant a nunc pro tunc order because it was sought after the expiry of the applicable limitation period.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of possession of 102 grams of powder cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and sentenced to 18 months' incarceration.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors such as his rehabilitation, bail history, and drug addiction.

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

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for child luring after communicating online with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old.

The appellant claimed he knew the person was not a minor and only met them for a 'gotcha' moment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) framework and drew logical inferences from the text messages.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, though the victim surcharge was set aside.

The appellant, a high school teacher, was convicted of sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a former student.

He appealed the convictions, arguing the trial judge misapplied the burden of proof, applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence, and erred in assessing credibility.

He also appealed his one-year sentence as harsh and excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments and concluding the sentence was fit given the extent of the manipulation and grooming.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, engaging in stereotypical reasoning, and failing to appreciate his motive theory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions that the complainant did not consent and was incapable of consenting were sound and entitled to deference.

The appellant was convicted of historical sexual assault and sexual interference against a complainant over whom he held a position of trust.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in failing to reconcile inconsistencies, overemphasizing his demeanour during a police interview, and assigning too much weight to the complainant's youthfulness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and findings were open to him.

The appellant was convicted of several offences arising out of an armed home invasion and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

He appealed his convictions and sentence, and his counsel pursued production of records to advance an alibi and alternate suspect defence.

However, the appellant was subsequently found inadmissible to Canada for serious criminality and deported.

As he was no longer amenable to the court's jurisdiction, the appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellants appealed their custodial sentences for production and possession for the purpose of trafficking in marijuana.

They sought a suspended sentence or an intermittent custodial sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle by the sentencing judge and held that the sentences were fit.

The appeals from sentence were dismissed, except that the victim surcharges were set aside.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, unlawful confinement, and breach of recognizance, as well as his 4.5-year sentence, arising from a home invasion.

He argued the unlawful confinement conviction violated the Kienapple principle as it was not a separate delict from the robbery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient evidence of domination and coercive restraint distinct from the robbery.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 4.5-year sentence reflected no error in principle and fell within the fit range, though the victim surcharge was set aside.

The appellants appealed their convictions for drug and weapons offences based on fresh evidence.

The evidence revealed that an essential police witness was the adoptive brother of one of the appellants, who had previously alleged he sexually assaulted her.

The Crown conceded that the failure to disclose this relationship and the resulting impact on the appellant compromised the fairness of the trial.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial, noting the Crown's undertaking not to re-prosecute.

The appellant appealed his conviction for firearms and narcotics offences, arguing that police surveillance violated his s. 8 Charter rights, the initial search warrant was invalid due to misrepresentations, and the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, or that the police conduct constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the police surveillance from a distance on neighbouring property did not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy.

While acknowledging minor s. 8 breaches related to delayed reporting and a defective warrant, the court upheld the trial judge's decision not to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) and found no abuse of process, noting the police trespass was not serious and based on erroneous legal advice.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Prior to the hearing of his appeal, the appellant died.

His counsel filed a notice of abatement.

The Court of Appeal applied the established principles regarding mootness and abatement, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify proceeding with the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed as moot.