Davin Michael Garg

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that directed his detention at a mental health facility, revoking his prior conditional discharge.

The appellant had been returned to the facility after being charged with criminal harassment, which was resolved by a peace bond.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was reasonable, given his diagnosis, lack of insight, and recent negative interactions.

The Court also upheld the detention order, noting the appellant's lack of stable housing and employment prospects, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 3 years and 7 months for robbery, arguing the sentencing judge erred by crediting his pre-sentence custody at 1.25:1 instead of 1.5:1, and by placing undue weight on his criminal record.

The Crown conceded the error regarding pre-sentence custody credit.

The Court of Appeal applied the standard of review from Lacasse and found no other errors in principle, noting the appellant was a mature recidivist and the robbery was planned and involved an imitation weapon.

The court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence by 94 days to reflect the 1.5:1 credit, but otherwise dismissed the appeal.

The accused was charged with three offences arising from a motor vehicle collision at Weston Road and Eglinton Avenue West in Toronto: (1) care or control of a motor vehicle with blood-alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit; (2) failure to remain at the scene of an accident; and (3) care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

The Crown's theory was that the accused drove a Lexus that fled the collision scene and subsequently had care or control of the vehicle while parked on Cordella Avenue with elevated blood-alcohol levels.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the accused's pre-arrest statements and breath sample results on Charter grounds, arguing violations of sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court rejected all Charter applications and found the accused guilty on all three counts.

The respondent was acquitted at trial of several driving offences causing death and bodily harm, with the trial judge finding reasonable doubt as to whether the respondent or his passenger was driving at the time of the fatal collision.

The Crown appealed the acquittals, arguing the trial judge made errors of law in his treatment of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge misapprehended key eyewitness testimony and failed to consider the totality of the evidence, instead applying the reasonable doubt standard in a piecemeal fashion to individual pieces of evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting the complainant's spontaneous complaint and in assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the complaint was properly admitted as part of the narrative to provide context for assessing credibility, and that the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence or unfairly scrutinize the defence evidence.

The sentence appeal was abandoned.