Dena Nancy Bonnet

The appellant, Trae Worrie, appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and attempted murder, arguing he was Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder.

Two forensic psychiatrists unanimously opined he was NCR, but the trial judge rejected this defense, finding him guilty.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge materially misapprehended expert evidence, particularly concerning a psychologist's testimony, and misused the appellant's after-the-fact conduct.

The court concluded there was no rational basis to reject the unanimous expert opinion that the appellant was NCR.

The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and a verdict of NCR was substituted.

The appellant, Philip Grandine, appealed his conviction for manslaughter and his 15-year sentence in the drowning death of his wife, Karissa Grandine.

This was his second trial, the first conviction having been overturned.

The appeal raised three grounds against conviction: error in leaving a criminal negligence by omission theory of liability to the jury without evidentiary basis, error in refusing to exclude evidence based on issue estoppel (computer searches for "autopsy"), and inadequate jury instruction on the use of the appellant's out-of-court statements.

The appellant also argued the sentence was excessive and based on an unproven aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding sufficient evidentiary basis for the criminal negligence theory, no issue estoppel error, and adequate jury instructions.

The court also found the sentence was fit and reasonable, rejecting the "almost murder" characterization argument and the breach of trust argument.

James Faichney, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for an assault, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge.

He argued the ORB erred by failing to consider a Gladue report and principles, and that its finding of a "significant threat" to public safety was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the ORB implicitly considered Gladue factors relevant to the threat assessment by addressing the availability of culturally appropriate care, and that the "significant threat" finding was reasonable given evidence of medication non-compliance and unrealistic expectations for independent care.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to reject a joint submission for his transfer to a less secure facility.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the ORB's handling of the joint submission and that the ORB's decision to deny the transfer was reasonable given the appellant's recent history of aggressive and self-harming behaviour and the receiving institution's objections.

This appeal concerned the Ontario Review Board's refusal to order a psychiatric assessment for an accused, found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCRMD) for double murder, who had been designated a "high-risk accused." The accused sought the assessment to promote an application to the Superior Court to remove his high-risk designation, arguing his progress meant he no longer qualified.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Board's decision.

The Court clarified that the "substantial likelihood" test for reviewing a high-risk designation assesses the accused's inherent risk of violence if not subject to external constraints, not their risk under current supervised conditions.

Given the accused's history and ongoing risk factors, the Board's conclusion that an assessment would not change its determination was reasonable.

The Court also noted the Board's error in applying an "onus" on the accused in inquisitorial proceedings, though found it non-prejudicial.

The appellant, Duane Jeffrey Anderson, appealed a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), arguing he did not understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, holding that despite the absence of a formal plea comprehension inquiry (as the plea was "not guilty"), the amplified record, including affidavits from the appellant and trial counsel, demonstrated that the appellant's participation was voluntary, informed, and unequivocal.

The court found that trial counsel had thoroughly explained the NCRMD process, its implications, and the procedural steps, and the trial judge's concluding colloquy with the appellant confirmed his understanding.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for various offences, appealed a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant argued the Board erred by failing to consider his significant progress in hospital, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hospital's prior non-compliance with a restriction of liberty (ROL) order, and an alleged outdated understanding of the Mental Health Act's committal provisions by the treating psychiatrist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly considered the appellant's progress and the pandemic's effects, appropriately reprimanded the hospital for its past non-compliance, and was entitled to rely on the psychiatrist's evidence given the record.

The court emphasized the Board's paramount consideration of public safety and the need for a complete record on Mental Health Act committal provisions in future disputes.

The Ontario Court of Appeal addressed two appeals concerning the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) jurisdiction to conduct disposition review hearings by videoconference without the accused's consent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant, found not criminally responsible (NCR), objected to a virtual hearing.

The ORB proceeded without consent and subsequently ordered her detention.

The Superior Court quashed the ORB's jurisdictional ruling via certiorari.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal of the certiorari order, affirming that the ORB lacked statutory authority under the Criminal Code to compel virtual attendance without consent.

It also allowed the applicant's appeal of the detention order, finding it void due to the ORB's violation of procedural rules (Rule 43.03(5) of the Criminal Proceedings Rules) by proceeding while a certiorari application was pending.

The court emphasized that the Criminal Code implies a right to physical presence unless consent is given for virtual attendance, and that the pandemic does not justify exceeding statutory jurisdiction.

Her Majesty the Queen appealed the acquittals of the respondent on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to consider the statutory prerequisite of "reasonable steps" in ascertaining consent, as required by s. 273.2(b) of the Criminal Code, when assessing the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittals, and ordered a new trial, as the trial judge's reasons lacked sufficient clarity on factual and credibility findings to permit entering convictions.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on driving-related charges, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention at a secure forensic psychiatric unit.

He argued the Board erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety and in failing to hold a hearing regarding a temporary increase in restrictions on his liberty following an elopement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion on public safety risk was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Court declined to decide the restriction of liberty issue as it was moot, and refused to impose a general notice and hearing procedure on the Board.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention and a decision that a temporary hold on his indirectly supervised community passes did not constitute a significant restriction of liberty requiring a mandatory hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant's continued detention was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition given his recent decompensation.

The Court also upheld the Board's application of the Campbell framework, agreeing that the temporary restriction on privileges was a day-to-day clinical management decision that did not meet the threshold of a significant increase in liberty restrictions.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for killing his sister, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

He argued the Board failed to order the least onerous and least restrictive disposition by not directing the hospital to grant him indirectly supervised passes without requiring his participation in structured programming.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the hospital needed the appellant to engage in structured programming to assess his risk to the community, and that no treatment impasse existed.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for three counts of assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at a forensic hospital.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's longstanding, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, lack of insight, and severe substance abuse issues—which predictably lead to decompensation and aggressive behaviour—supported the Board's conclusion that he remained a significant threat to the public.

The appellant was convicted of child luring and making sexually explicit images available to a child following an undercover police sting.

The trial judge relied on the evidentiary presumption of belief in age under s. 172.1(3) of the Criminal Code.

Following the convictions, the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Morrison struck down this presumption as unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by applying the pre-Morrison framework and relying on the presumption to establish the appellant's belief in the interlocutor's age.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR), had been eligible to live in a community residential setting since 2014 but remained in forensic custody due to a lack of funded supportive housing.

He brought a Charter application arguing his continued detention violated his section 7 liberty rights.

The Ontario Review Board dismissed the application, claiming it lacked jurisdiction to grant a funding remedy and that the proper parties were not present.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board had broad inquisitorial powers and jurisdiction to grant the remedy.

The Court held that the appellant's continued detention due solely to a lack of funding was arbitrary and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The government was ordered to address the appellant's accommodation at his next scheduled annual review.

The Empowerment Council and the Criminal Lawyers' Association brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal from a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

The underlying appeal concerned whether the failure to provide resources for supportive community housing breached the appellant's rights under section 7 of the Charter, and whether the Board had remedial jurisdiction to order funding.

The court dismissed the Empowerment Council's motion, finding its proposed intervention on the Board's inquisitorial role would not assist the court.

The court granted the Criminal Lawyers' Association's motion to intervene solely on the issue of the Board's remedial Charter jurisdiction to make funding orders.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder arising from the deaths of two sex trade workers found in different locations in the Niagara Region approximately 29 months apart.

Both victims died of blunt-force trauma to the head, and blood of both victims was found in the appellant's residences.

The trial judge admitted evidence of one count as similar act evidence on the other count and refused to sever the counts.

The trial judge also refused to discharge a juror who had a prior acquaintance with the victim's stepmother, and declined to leave manslaughter as an included offence.

The Court of Appeal found multiple errors: the similar act evidence did not meet the required threshold of striking similarity, the juror should have been discharged to preserve the appearance of fairness, and manslaughter should have been left to the jury.

The court also addressed a Charter breach regarding live monitoring conditions in wiretap authorizations but found the evidence admissible under section 24(2).

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder following a violent altercation at a house party.

The appellant, then 19 years old, stabbed and killed a partygoer during a confrontation.

The appeal raised three main issues: (1) whether the appellant's police statement was voluntary despite repeated assertions of the right to silence and police suggestions regarding credibility at trial; (2) whether the trial judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defence of others under section 34 of the Criminal Code; and (3) whether the trial judge's instructions on self-defence were unbalanced and failed to present evidence supporting the appellant's version of events.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred on all three grounds and allowed the appeal, ordering a new trial.

The appellant appealed her convictions on two counts of impaired operation causing bodily harm, two counts of driving over 80 causing bodily harm, and two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The charges arose from a motor vehicle accident in which the appellant's vehicle overturned after she failed to negotiate a curve.

The central issue on appeal concerned the trial judge's instruction to the jury regarding the W.(D.) direction as it applied to the appellant's statement at the accident scene: "I don't know what happened.

My car just lost control." The Court of Appeal found that while the initial charge was adequate, the recharge contained serious errors in the application of the W.(D.) direction, particularly the omission of the second and third branches of the instruction in the recharge, which constitute non-direction amounting to misdirection on a critical aspect of the defence.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition continuing a conditional discharge for an NCR accused.

The appellant argued that the Board's finding that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's risk assessment was unreasonable because it was based on speculative evidence regarding the likelihood of reoffending and failed to properly balance the seriousness of potential harm against the risk of that harm materializing.

The court emphasized that lack of insight alone is not a basis to deny an absolute discharge and that the contemplated harm fell towards the least serious end of the spectrum of serious criminal offences.