Dena Nancy Bonnet

The appellant appealed dispositions of the Ontario Review Board dated June 23, 2016 and March 7, 2017 regarding her detention on a secure forensic unit.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and related offences in 2005 and 2006.

She argued that the Board's finding that she poses a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and that she should receive an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that she remains a significant threat but found that the Board erred in summarily dismissing her request for a conditional discharge without further inquiry into her current behavioural status and without considering whether her risk could be managed through a conditional discharge with a consensual treatment order.

The Crown moved to quash an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that there was no provision in either the Criminal Code or the Criminal Proceedings Rules for an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a stand-alone Charter application.

The appellant had brought a constitutional challenge under section 672.56 of the Criminal Code using the Criminal Proceedings Rules rather than the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that the procedural irregularity did not prejudice any party and that the substance of the procedure, which was civil and declaratory in nature, must prevail over its form.

The court exercised its discretion to hear the appeal despite the procedural error.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 6, 2017.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge and argued against residing in a group home, preferring to live with either his friend or stepfather.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence supporting the Board's refusal to grant a conditional discharge and its requirement that the appellant continue residing in the group home.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with assault and forcible confinement arising from an incident on August 20, 2016, during which he allegedly punched the complainant in the eye and confined her in his home against her will.

The Crown called the complainant as its primary witness, while the accused testified in his own defence and called two character witnesses.

The court found the complainant to be a credible witness and accepted her evidence that the accused intentionally struck her in the eye, resulting in a conviction for assault.

However, the court was left in reasonable doubt regarding the forcible confinement allegation and dismissed that charge.

The decision turned on credibility assessments, with the court finding the accused's testimony to be evasive and self-serving, while the complainant's account was straightforward and corroborated by the severity of her injuries.

The accused was charged with assault and forcible confinement arising from an altercation with a dating partner.

The complainant alleged the accused punched her in the eye during an argument and subsequently prevented her from leaving his home.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties and found the complainant’s account of the assault reliable, supported by the severity and immediacy of the eye injury.

However, the evidence concerning the alleged confinement left the court with reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted of assault but acquitted of forcible confinement.

The defendant was charged with assault and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown alleged the defendant punched the complainant, causing minor injury, and breached a probation term to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

The complainant testified she was not assaulted and that her irrational behaviour during a mental breakdown led to the defendant's arrest.

Two independent civilian witnesses testified they observed injuries on the complainant's face and heard her state she had been punched by her boyfriend.

The court found the civilian evidence credible and objective, rejected the complainant's testimony as contrived and self-serving, and found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of both charges.

The appellant was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence and sexual assault.

He appealed on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically that trial counsel failed to adequately advise him of his right to elect his mode of trial under s. 536 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded by indictment on the break and enter charge, which triggered the appellant's right to elect between trial in Superior Court (with preliminary inquiry) or Ontario Court of Justice.

Trial counsel made the election without providing the appellant with adequate advice regarding his options or their respective advantages and disadvantages.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's fundamental right to make an informed election regarding mode of trial had been violated, constituting a miscarriage of justice that undermined the fairness of the trial proceedings.

The hospital appealed a mandatory order from the Ontario Review Board requiring it to provide up to two escorted visits per year for a forensic patient to his mother's home for dinner.

The patient had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for sexual assault offences and had been detained in maximum security since 1989.

The Review Board initially made the visits discretionary but amended its disposition to make them mandatory.

The Court of Appeal allowed the hospital's appeal, finding that the board erred in law and acted unreasonably by imposing a mandatory order without discretion.

The court held that while the board may encourage the hospital to create community visit programs, the terms must remain discretionary to allow the hospital to consider staff availability, patient stability, and the consent of the person to be visited.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for setting a bus on fire, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition imposing a detention order with community living.

He argued that a conditional discharge was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia and substance use disorder, and that a detention order was necessary to manage his risk.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge reversed the burden of proof on consent, failed to adequately scrutinize the complainant's evidence, and erred in assessing his police statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The trial judge correctly applied the burden of proof, reasonably assessed credibility, and properly concluded the complainant was asleep during the sexual encounter.

The appellant appealed his convictions for various firearm offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, arising from a traffic stop where a handgun was found in the back of his vehicle.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding his movements in the vehicle and rendered an unreasonable verdict regarding his knowledge and control of the firearm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual findings were supported by the record and that it was open to the trial judge to infer that the appellant knew the loaded gun was in his car.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on a youthful first offender, arguing it was demonstrably unfit and failed to properly consider parity with co-accused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the sentence was lenient, the trial judge's combination of a jail term, maximum probation, and credit for stringent bail conditions was not demonstrably unfit.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's consideration of parity given the material differences among the co-accused.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual interference arising from historical abuse allegations involving child complainants within a family setting.

The appeal alleged material misapprehension of evidence concerning opportunity, bedroom access, and the timing of a disclosure, as well as uneven scrutiny of defence evidence.

The court applied the governing appellate standard for misapprehension of evidence and held that the identified errors were not substantive and played no essential role in the verdict.

It further held that the trial judge was entitled to treat inconsistencies in the complainants’ evidence as peripheral while finding that the defence evidence on opportunity was contrived.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for several offences against his wife, including assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and dangerous driving.

The primary issue was the trial judge's admission of the complainant's videotaped police statement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, as she claimed memory loss at trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld the admission of the statement and the trial judge's credibility findings.

However, the Court found the conviction for dangerous driving unreasonable due to insufficient evidence regarding the manner of driving, quashing that conviction and entering an acquittal.

The remaining convictions were upheld.

The Crown appealed a reviewing judge's decision to quash a preliminary inquiry committal for first degree murder and substitute a committal for second degree murder.

The accused was charged with first degree murder based on the allegation that he caused the victim's death while committing a sexual assault.

The reviewing judge found no evidence of lack of consent to the sexual act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the first degree murder committal, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge did not exceed his jurisdiction.

The Court held that the nature of the injuries, the position of the body, and the short timeframe supported a reasonable inference that the sexual contact was not consensual.

The appellant, who was found Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant argued the Board erred by departing from a joint submission without adequate notice and by admitting unredacted victim impact statements containing inadmissible material.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing did not proceed on the basis of a true joint submission, that adequate notice of the Board's concerns was given, and that the Board made no reviewable error in admitting the victim impact statements.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant argued the Board erred by failing to issue the least onerous and restrictive disposition, seeking a transfer to a less secure facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board applied the correct test and reasonably concluded that continued detention at the secure facility was necessary for public protection given the appellant's recent history of violence and recent medication change.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in her treatment of bruising evidence and the mens rea of the offence.

The Crown appealed the 90-day intermittent sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's reliance on the physical injuries as consistent with the complainant's testimony.

The Court allowed the Crown's sentence appeal, finding the original sentence manifestly unfit for a date-rape scenario involving contemptuous disregard for the complainant's personal integrity, and substituted an 18-month term of imprisonment.

The appellant sought leave to appeal sentence following convictions for multiple sexual assaults against a child in respect of whom he occupied a position of trust and authority.

He argued the sentencing judge selected the wrong sentencing range because the assaults did not involve penetration and that a three-year penitentiary term should have been imposed.

The court held that, whether the starting point was three years or five years, the five-year sentence disclosed no error in principle, fell within the applicable range, and was not manifestly unfit given repeated assaults, grooming behaviour, exploitation of vulnerability, and trust-based abuse.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought leave to appeal convictions arising from late-night shouting on a residential street and an interaction with police.

The court held that the causing a disturbance analysis is contextual and that it was open to the trial judge to find the offence made out on the evidence.

The court also rejected the argument that the appellant was psychologically detained when he pushed one of the officers, relying on evidence that he was free to proceed to his house.

Leave to appeal was dismissed.