Deborah Lynn Krick

The appellant appealed convictions for procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and making child pornography, challenging the constitutionality of a cellphone seizure under section 8 of the Charter.

The appeal hinged on the factual determination of whether the arrest occurred in a hotel hallway (lawful) or the hotel room (unlawful).

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the arrest occurred in the hallway, affirming the trial judge's credibility assessment of police officers' evidence despite minor inconsistencies.

The Court found no material misapprehension of evidence or uneven scrutiny, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant argued that a conditional discharge allowing him to return to his independent apartment was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was entitled to deference and reasonably concluded that the appellant required close 24-hour supervision due to his history of decompensation, violent behaviour, and substance abuse.

This decision addresses motions by proposed interveners in a criminal appeal concerning the constitutionality of Criminal Code provisions related to sexual services.

The respondent, N.S., was charged with offences under ss. 286.2(1), 286.3(1), and 286.4, which were declared unconstitutional by the trial judge.

The Crown appealed this decision and sought a stay of the declaration.

Proposed interveners, including sex workers' rights organizations, sought leave to intervene in the appeal and the stay motion.

They also requested to delay the appeal pending a separate civil application challenging broader Criminal Code provisions and to introduce fresh evidence.

The court granted leave to intervene in both the stay motion and the appeal, but denied the requests to delay the appeal and to augment the factual record.

The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of criminal appeals, particularly those involving constitutional challenges with conflicting jurisprudence, and reiterated that interveners act as friends of the court, not parties, and generally cannot expand the evidentiary record or issues.

The appellant, Adrian Daou, appealed his conviction for first-degree murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on confessions made by the appellant to police while he was incarcerated and suffering from schizophrenia.

The lead investigator, Det. Monette, testified that he believed the confession was true, providing detailed reasons.

The Court of Appeal found this police opinion evidence inadmissible as it amounted to an opinion on the appellant's guilt and usurped the jury's function.

The trial judge erred by failing to provide a limiting instruction and by reiterating the officer's opinion.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso, finding that the inadmissible evidence and lack of caution seriously risked dominating the jury's consideration of the confession's veracity and the appellant's guilt, thus resulting in an unfair trial.

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

This consolidated appeal addressed the admissibility of evidence obtained through a wiretap authorization granted in 2016 for a 2009 murder investigation.

The Court of Appeal found that the authorization was improperly granted due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds, as the affidavit failed to establish a credible-based probability that interceptions would yield evidence of the long-dormant homicide or that other investigative procedures were unlikely to succeed.

The court emphasized that a generic investigative plan and unsupported inferences of continued association among targets after several years were insufficient.

Consequently, the interceptions constituted a serious breach of Charter s. 8 rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court upheld the exclusion of the evidence under Charter s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the state conduct and the significant impact on privacy interests.

The appeals from conviction were allowed, and acquittals were entered, while the appeals from acquittal were dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of firearms offences and released on bail pending appeal.

He subsequently absconded, failing to reside with his surety or surrender into custody as required by his release order.

His counsel brought a motion to be removed as solicitor of record due to a breakdown in communications, which was granted.

The Crown brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as abandoned.

The Court of Appeal granted the Crown's motion, dismissing the appeal as abandoned and issuing a warrant for the appellant's arrest.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence following convictions for multiple offences against an intimate partner, including sexual assault with a weapon and forcible confinement.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge misapprehended expert evidence regarding his likelihood of recidivism and failed to properly assess the intractability of his conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of the expert evidence on age-related decline in violent behaviour.

The Court held that the sentencing judge's findings on intractability at the sentencing stage could be applied to the designation stage, and that the indeterminate sentence was appropriate given the appellant's poor treatment prospects and high risk of violent reoffending.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder, sought an order under s. 680(1) of the Criminal Code directing a panel of the Court of Appeal to review a single judge's decision denying him bail pending appeal.

The motion judge evaluated the public interest criterion under s. 679(3)(c), focusing on public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court found no arguable material errors in the bail judge's conclusion that the applicant's involvement in high-level drug trafficking and access to a dangerous weapon posed significant public safety concerns.

Furthermore, the grounds of appeal, including challenges to eyewitness instructions and a Charter claim regarding a vehicle's infotainment system, were deemed relatively weak.

The application for review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an 18-year sentence imposed for manslaughter in connection with a fatal shooting at a house party in Hamilton.

The appellant attended the party with a co-accused who was armed and recruited the appellant to provide protection.

A dispute over music led to gunfire in which the co-accused killed the victim and wounded another person, while the appellant fired a shot wounding a third person.

The appellant was convicted as a party to the manslaughter and of aggravated assault.

The sentencing judge imposed an 18-year sentence, which the Court of Appeal found to be in error based on erroneous characterization of the appellant's role and inappropriate use of the term "aggravated manslaughter."

The appellant appealed his convictions for unlawful confinement, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and choking with intent, as well as his sentence.

On the conviction appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's decision to permit cross-examination on his prior conviction for attempted murder under the Corbett framework, and alleged improper Crown conduct during cross-examination and closing argument.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion to allow the cross-examination given the defence's all-out attack on the complainant's credibility and the absence of other evidence to neutralize that attack.

The Crown's conduct was found to be vigorous but proper advocacy.

On the sentence appeal, the Crown conceded that the dangerous offender hearing should have proceeded under post-2008 legislation but sought to uphold the designation under the curative proviso.

The Court of Appeal rejected this submission, finding that the curative proviso was unavailable due to significant evidentiary overlap between the designation and sentencing stages and the possibility that fresh evidence could affect the designation determination.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of his common-law wife from a single stab wound.

He appealed his conviction on four grounds: failure to answer a jury question regarding mental state for murder; admission of bad character evidence; admission of a 911 call; and misdirection on post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly admitted the evidence and gave appropriate jury instructions.

The first ground was abandoned after fresh evidence established the jury question was answered timely.

The remaining grounds were rejected as the trial judge properly balanced probative value against prejudicial effect and provided adequate cautionary instructions to the jury.

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 appealed his sentence of indeterminate detention imposed following his conviction for robbery with a firearm.

The trial judge had designated the appellant as a dangerous offender and sentenced him to indeterminate detention.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by applying an improper presumption that the appellant must be sentenced to indeterminate detention unless it was established that a reasonable expectation exists that Long Term Offender sentencing is sufficient.

This error was contrary to the principles established in R. v. Boutilier.

The Crown conceded the error but argued the proviso should apply.

The Court of Appeal disagreed and allowed the appeal, setting aside the sentence and ordering a new sentencing hearing to be conducted expeditiously.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter, kidnapping, and offering an indignity to a body arising from the death of the victim.

The appellant ordered the kidnapping of the victim, believing he had stolen from him.

The victim was beaten, kidnapped, bound, and confined at the appellant's automotive shop, where he died.

The appellant's body was subsequently burned.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the actus reus and mens rea of manslaughter were established, and that the sentence was harsh and excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to either ground.

The appellant applied for release pending determination of his appeal on convictions of child luring under s. 172.1(4) of the Criminal Code and communication for the purpose of prostitution with a person under 16 under s. 286.1.

The appellant was sentenced to one year imprisonment.

The respondent opposed release on the basis that the appeal was frivolous.

The appellant argued that a pending Supreme Court decision in R. v. Morrison regarding the interpretation of s. 172.1(4) would be relevant to his appeal and that his continued custody would be manifestly unjust pending that decision.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the appellant failed to meet the threshold to demonstrate the appeal was not frivolous.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder on three grounds: (1) whether the trial judge erred in refusing to put the defence of provocation to the jury; (2) whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the use of evidence that the appellant did not apply the brakes immediately after striking the victim; and (3) whether the trial judge erred in failing to recuse Crown counsel for failing to disclose certain information communicated by a Crown witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder in connection with the fatal shooting of a man leaving a New Year's Eve party.

The central issue at trial was whether the appellant or his associate, Baptists Bernier, fired the fatal shot.

Bernier testified as a Crown witness after pleading guilty to being an accessory after the fact to murder.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) failure to instruct the jury that Bernier's guilty plea could not be used as evidence against the appellant; (2) failure to give an adequate Vetrovec instruction regarding Bernier's evidence; and (3) failure to adequately relate evidence to the issue of intent for the included offence of manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three grounds and upheld the conviction.

The Crown brought an ex parte motion for a production order under the Criminal Code against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) to obtain audio and video footage of an interview with a sexual assault complainant.

The application was subject to the Journalistic Sources Protection Act (JSPA).

The CBC submitted written arguments opposing the order and requesting a special advocate, but did not appear in person.

The court granted the production order, finding that the general prerequisites were met, there was no other reasonable way to obtain the information, and the public interest in investigating and prosecuting sexual offences outweighed the journalist's right to privacy.

The court declined to allow the CBC to appear inter partes at this stage or appoint a special advocate, noting the JSPA's bifurcated procedure provides for a later disclosure hearing.

The footage is to be sealed, and the CBC retains the right to apply for a non-disclosure order.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault by pouring boiling water on a vulnerable adult victim.

The victim had initially recanted her allegations, claiming the injuries were self-inflicted, but later reverted to her original account during cross-examination.

The trial judge convicted the appellant based on corroborating medical evidence from two treating physicians that the severe burns were inconsistent with self-infliction, combined with the victim's testimony regarding the circumstances of the assault.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: misapprehension of medical evidence, failure to exercise the gatekeeper function regarding expert evidence, misapplication of the burden of proof, and unreasonable verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds and upheld the conviction.

The appellant was convicted of three counts of historical sexual assault against two teenage nieces committed between 1976 and 1986, and received a global sentence of six years.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's admission of similar fact evidence regarding his 2009 convictions for sexual offences against his step-daughters.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's analysis that the probative value of the similar fact evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, particularly given the striking similarities in the circumstances of the incidents despite some dissimilarities in the nature of the acts.