Deepa Negandhi

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a mental health centre with conditions, arguing he should have been conditionally discharged.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's lack of insight, medication non-compliance, and intimidation of his treatment team.

The court also rejected the argument that a recent appellate decision setting aside a prior conviction undermined the Board's disposition, as the Board relied on the appellant's own testimony regarding the underlying incident.

The appellant was convicted of multiple firearms offences after police discovered a loaded handgun during a warrantless search of a rental car under s. 12(3) of the Cannabis Control Act, 2017.

On appeal, the Crown conceded that the appellant's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was breached when officers failed to advise him of his rights before conducting the CCA search, consistent with the court's intervening decision in R. v. McGowan-Morris, 2025 ONCA 349.

The court upheld the trial judge's finding that the vehicle search did not breach s. 8 but allowed the appeal on the s. 10(b) ground, setting aside convictions and ordering a new trial where the admissibility of the appellant's flight evidence and his racial profiling claim could be properly assessed.

The appellant was convicted of multiple firearm-related offences following a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown's case relied heavily on two statements made by the appellant to police on May 18, 2020.

The appellant appealed, arguing that he was detained during the execution of a search warrant at his residence without being advised of his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that his subsequent arrest was unlawful.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in concluding the appellant was not psychologically detained when police questioned him in the garage of his home during the search warrant execution.

The court held that the appellant's ss. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights were violated, and that his arrest was consequently unlawful, constituting a breach of s. 9.

However, applying the s. 24(2) test, the court determined that the statements should not be excluded from evidence, as the admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a bar manager, was convicted of sexual assault and voyeurism after sexually assaulting a female employee in the bar basement while intentionally having the incident recorded by a security camera.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: (1) the trial judge over-relied on the complainant's demeanor when assessing credibility; (2) the trial judge misapplied the adopted admissions rule by relying on text messages between the appellant and his co-accused; and (3) the trial judge misapplied the doctrine of reasonable expectation of privacy.

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

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching entered on November 22, 2023.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's refusal to instruct the jury to disregard Crown closing submissions regarding the absence of the complainant's mother's testimony about witnessing the alleged incidents.

The appellant argued that the Crown's submission was improper because the mother had told police she witnessed an incident that was not testified to at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Crown properly based its submission on evidence actually led at trial and that defence counsel's failure to cross-examine the mother about her police statement was a tactical decision.

The appellant, Deepak Chhabra, was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 13 months' imprisonment.

He sought bail pending appeal, arguing that the trial judge erred in refusing to reopen the trial to admit new GPS evidence and in other respects.

The Crown opposed bail, citing flight risk, particularly because Chhabra attempted to leave Canada the day before sentencing.

The Court of Appeal found that the reviewability interest outweighed enforceability, given the short sentence and the safeguards in the proposed release plan, and granted bail with additional conditions.

The appellant, Travis Babbington, appealed his conviction for first degree murder.

He argued that the trial judge erred in admitting his post-arrest statement to police, in instructing the jury on planning and deliberation, in failing to caution the jury about prior consistent statements, and in instructing on eyewitness identification.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge’s rulings or jury instructions.

The appellant appealed her convictions for fraud, uttering forged documents, and breach of probation arising from the purchase of jewellery using fraudulent cheques.

On appeal, she sought to introduce a bank statement as fresh evidence to show she believed she had sufficient funds.

The Court of Appeal declined to admit the fresh evidence, finding it was not genuine based on a sworn statement from a bank investigator.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that the trial judge failed to conduct a proper analysis of the circumstantial evidence regarding her mental state, concluding the evidence of her fraudulent intent was overwhelming.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference following a jury trial.

At trial, the Crown argued in closing that the self-represented appellant's lack of romantic relationships provided a motive for the offences, characterizing him as a 'sexual opportunist'.

The trial judge included this theory of motive in the jury charge.

The Court of Appeal held that this evidence was irrelevant, prejudicial, and unfair, as it invited impermissible reasoning and the appellant was never cross-examined on it.

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

The appellant, Carolyn Burden, appealed her conviction for fraud over $5,000 and her five-year sentence, which included restitution and forfeiture orders.

She argued her guilty plea was uninformed and the sentence unduly harsh, particularly regarding the imposition of both a forfeiture order and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding her plea informed and voluntary.

However, it granted leave to appeal sentence, setting aside the forfeiture order and reducing the fine in lieu of forfeiture to account for prior restitution payments, clarifying that only one such order (forfeiture or fine in lieu) can be imposed and that restitution should reduce the fine.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition.

The appellant challenged the Board's decision to issue a detention order instead of a conditional discharge, and argued that two specific conditions of the detention order were overly restrictive.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding it reasonable given the appellant's significant threat to public safety and the joint submission of the parties.

However, the court found two conditions to be unreasonably restrictive: the requirement for "supervised" accommodation and the need for hospital consent for communication with his mother in addition to her own consent.

The appeal was allowed in part, striking the word "supervised" from the accommodation condition and removing the hospital consent requirement from the communication condition.

The appellant appealed convictions for historical sexual offences involving his adopted sister and sisters-in-law.

The appeal primarily challenged the trial judge's assessment of similar fact evidence, including its probative value, alleged misapprehension of evidence, and consideration of collusion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the trial judge's rulings on similar fact evidence or credibility assessments.

The court affirmed that the trial judge properly considered the probative value of similar fact evidence holistically, including the context of the alleged acts and the absence of collusion, and that credibility assessments are within the purview of the trial judge.

The appellant appealed her conviction for aggravated assault against a 13-month-old child, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing conflicting expert medical evidence on the causation of the child's head injury.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge improperly preferred the Crown's expert opinion in isolation before considering the totality of the evidence, thereby misapplying the R. v. W.(D.) framework.

This led to a flawed assessment of the defence's alternative theories and a failure to properly consider whether the evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.

The applicant sought bail pending leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, challenging his assault conviction and nine-month sentence.

The grounds for appeal included the trial judge's use of social context in credibility assessments and sentencing, alleged misapprehension of evidence, and whether simple assault is a lesser and included offense of aggravated assault.

The court denied bail, finding the grounds for leave to appeal were not frivolous but did not clearly surpass the minimal threshold, and that continued detention was necessary in the public interest, balancing enforceability and reviewability.

Michael Theriault appealed his conviction for common assault and his nine-month sentence, stemming from an altercation where he, an off-duty police officer, and his brother assaulted Dafonte Miller, a young Black man, after catching him stealing from their truck.

The trial judge had acquitted the brothers of aggravated assault and obstruction of justice but convicted Michael of common assault for striking Miller with a pipe when Miller was retreating.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Michael Theriault's appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.

The Crown's cross-appeal against the acquittals was also dismissed without addressing its merits, as the Crown had indicated they would not pursue a new trial if Michael Theriault's common assault conviction was upheld.

The offender, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of assault for striking a young Black man in the face with a metal pipe while the victim was injured and seeking help.

The court emphasized the need for denunciation and general deterrence, noting the breach of public trust and the racialized context of the offence.

The offender was sentenced to 9 months in jail, followed by 12 months of probation, along with DNA, weapons prohibition, and non-communication orders.

The Crown brought an application under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code to allow a biology scientist from the Centre of Forensic Sciences to testify remotely by videoconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the Crown had not met its onus.

The court dismissed the application, finding no specific health concerns for the witness and concluding that the jury would benefit from hearing the highly technical evidence in person.

Prior to the offender's sentencing, the Crown sought to file a community impact statement from the Black Action Defence Committee.

The defence objected to portions of the statement, arguing they exceeded the permissible scope under section 722.2 of the Criminal Code, and sought redactions.

The court held that while much of the statement provided necessary context regarding the impact of the offence on the Black community, two specific portions were irrelevant or inflammatory and required redaction.

The court otherwise declined to redact the statement, noting it would disregard any impermissible content.

The applicant, having been acquitted of aggravated assault but convicted of the lesser included offence of simple assault, applied to re-open the trial before sentencing.

The applicant argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to find him guilty of simple assault, asserting that aggravated assault under s. 268 of the Criminal Code does not contain a lesser included offence of assault.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to re-open the trial, emphasizing the principle of finality and noting the argument should have been raised during closing submissions.

The court also rejected the substantive argument, affirming that simple assault is a lesser included offence of aggravated assault.