Dena Bonnet

The appellant pleaded guilty to attempted break and enter and related offences, receiving a sentence of two years less a day and three years' probation.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by denying credit for five months of pre-trial custody without providing reasons.

The Court of Appeal agreed the trial judge erred in principle by failing to provide reasons for denying credit.

However, given the appellant's lengthy criminal record and the fact that the offences occurred shortly after his statutory release, the Court concluded the sentence was not demonstrably unfit and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing the verdict was unreasonable because he lacked sufficient time to stage the crime scene without pre-planning, which the jury rejected by acquitting him of first degree murder.

He also argued the trial judge erred in refusing to disclose information from a confidential informant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the jury to conclude the staging occurred within the available two-hour window, and upholding the trial judge's application of the innocence at stake test to maintain informant privilege.

The Crown appealed sentence in a case involving prolonged sexual abuse of three child victims by a family member in a position of trust.

The sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of two years' imprisonment plus probation, despite stating that a three-year custodial sentence would otherwise be appropriate.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentence failed to adequately reflect denunciation and deterrence, marked a departure from the governing case law, and was manifestly unfit in the context of multiple victims.

The appeal was allowed and a global sentence of four years' imprisonment was substituted, with the remaining orders continuing except for probation.

The appellant, an aboriginal first offender, pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 for her participation in a large-scale welfare fraud scheme on the Fort William First Nation.

She was sentenced to 16 months' incarceration and ordered to pay $96,000 in restitution.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in his application of the Gladue principles by requiring the appellant to establish a causal link between systemic background factors and the commission of the offence.

The Court allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to 10 months' incarceration followed by two years' probation, noting the appellant's lesser role, her gambling addiction, and her responsibilities as a caregiver to a disabled child.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the Crown's closing remarks to the jury resulted in an unfair trial.

The appellant contended that the Crown inappropriately invited the jury to put themselves in the position of a victim, commented on the complainant's demeanour, and offered unproven facts regarding the complainant's mother's feelings of guilt.

The Court of Appeal found that while some of the Crown's comments were inappropriate and best left unsaid, the trial judge's balanced and fair charge to the jury was sufficient to ensure a fair trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge improperly used his failure to testify to bolster the Crown's case, contrary to R. v. Noble.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not use the failure to testify as evidence to strengthen the case, but merely noted there was no other explanation for an otherwise overwhelming case.

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

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and his one-year custodial sentence.

The conviction arose from the sexual assault of a seriously intoxicated 16-year-old girl.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility, relying on confirmatory evidence, misapprehending communication evidence, and drawing an adverse inference regarding an uncalled witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's careful scrutiny of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as a custodial sentence was entirely appropriate given the vulnerability of the young victim.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention order rather than granting a conditional discharge.

The Board had concluded that a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, primarily because it allowed for immediate return to the hospital in the event of decompensation.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision reasonable, noting the appellant's recent decompensation and the need to demonstrate longitudinal stability in the community.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a six-year sentence imposed following convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and uttering death threats against his separated spouse.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by denying credit for strict pre-trial bail, improperly using a victim impact statement, rejecting remorse as a mitigating factor, and imposing a sentence outside the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle and concluding the sentence was fit given the egregious and horrific circumstances of the domestic assault.

The appellant filed written submissions asking to appeal his sentence following a previous hearing.

The Court of Appeal accepted that the appellant had not abandoned his sentence appeal, but ultimately dismissed the appeal for the reasons set out in the Crown's response.

The respondents were convicted of voting in a voting place where they were not entitled to vote and furnishing false information under the Municipal Elections Act.

The summary conviction appeal judge quashed the convictions, finding the Crown failed to prove the voting subdivisions and election officials were properly established under the Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, holding that the Crown did not need to prove the establishment of voting subdivisions for these specific charges, and that the written delegations to election officials were sufficient.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference involving a young girl who lived next door.

He argued the trial judge failed to consider the implausibility of the complainant's evidence and applied a harsher standard of scrutiny to the defence evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge carefully reviewed the evidence, reasonably believed the complainant, and applied the same level of scrutiny to all witnesses.

The Crown appealed a sentence of 90 days' intermittent custody imposed on the respondent for two counts of sexual interference involving a young child.

The Crown argued the trial judge placed too little weight on aggravating factors and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the sentence was at the low end of the range, the trial judge did not err in principle and the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The young person appealed findings of guilt on two counts of sexual assault involving two child complainants.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, considering collusion, and applying the W.(D.) framework.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge adequately scrutinized the evidence and properly rejected collusion.

Although the trial judge erred at the second step of the W.(D.) analysis by asking if the appellant's evidence 'could not reasonably be true', the Court applied the curative proviso, concluding the Crown's case was overwhelming and the rejected evidence could not have left a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for a serious fraud, arguing the sentencing judge misapprehended the duration and magnitude of the offence.

The Court of Appeal found no misapprehension on the record and held that the sentencing judge was justified in rejecting a conditional sentence.

The sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction on the basis that the trial judge relied on flawed identification evidence.

The complainant identified the appellant in the holding cells, a procedure the Court of Appeal found seriously flawed despite the appellant's request for it.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered as there was other evidence on the record that might sustain a conviction.

The appellant was convicted of robbery, unlawful confinement, and other offences arising from a home invasion.

The Crown alleged she acted as an aider or formed a common intention with the principals under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge's jury instructions were confusing and failed to explain the essential elements of the offences.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the instructions failed to link the general principles of party liability to the specific offences charged and improperly commingled the alternative grounds of liability.

The appeal was allowed, convictions quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Crown's reference to uncontradicted evidence violated section 4(6) of the Canada Evidence Act and that the trial judge's answer to a jury question undermined their right to disagree.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that stating evidence is uncontradicted does not amount to a comment on the failure to testify, and that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on their right to disagree.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, and robbery, as well as his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdict was reasonable and the trial judge's intervention during cross-examination was adequately addressed by jury instructions.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed because the trial judge erred by treating the conduct of the defence as an aggravating factor.

The total sentence was reduced from 11 years to 10 years, resulting in 8 years net of pre-trial custody credit.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible, appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at a mental health centre.

The appellant argued the Board failed to meaningfully consider how he could be conditionally discharged.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable because it failed to explain why detention was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, particularly given the availability of conditions regarding medication and statutory mechanisms for return to hospital.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.