Dena Nancy Bonnet

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.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, choking, uttering a threat, confining, and sexually assaulting his former partner.

The central issue at trial was credibility, with the complainant and appellant providing contradictory accounts.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient.

The trial judge failed to explain how he resolved significant inconsistencies and improbabilities in the complainant's evidence, and failed to adequately explain why he rejected the appellant's evidence, thereby impeding the appellant's right to meaningful appellate review.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge applied unequal scrutiny to the evidence, made unreasonable findings regarding a nurse and toxicologist, and failed to consider the complainant's motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge provided lengthy, careful reasons and made reasonable findings.

The Court declined the invitation to reweigh the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge engaged in speculation regarding the complainant's evidence, placed undue reliance on her demeanour, and applied unequal scrutiny to the defence evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made logical inferences from the record, properly considered corroborating evidence of the complainant's post-encounter conduct, and conducted a balanced and fair assessment of the evidence.

The young person appealed his conviction and sentence for assaulting a child.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's analysis of the evidence or her approach to the defence evidence.

The court also upheld the sentence, finding it was not manifestly excessive given the nature of the assaults, the child's age, and the breach of trust.

The appeal was dismissed, save for a consent variation to the probation order allowing the appellant to be alone with his own son.

On a ministerial reference concerning a 1972 murder conviction, the court considered whether previously undisclosed police information about a potentially exculpatory alibi and witness statements, and new expert reports about false confessions, were admissible as fresh evidence.

The majority held that the alibi-related material and related witness information were admissible under the Palmer framework because they could reasonably have affected the verdict, although the Crown's non-disclosure did not render the 1972 trial unfair under the disclosure standards then prevailing.

The majority rejected the recent expert reports as not truly fresh, finding that their substance had already been before the jury through trial experts.

Treating the matter as an appeal, the majority quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial; one judge dissented on the first question and would have refused admission of the fresh evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence of 72 months' imprisonment for an offence involving the provision of ecstasy and a lack of consent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's treatment of mens rea and mistaken belief in consent.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed; although the trial judge used inappropriate language regarding deportation, the 72-month sentence was appropriate given the serious nature of the offence and the appellant's prior record for a similar offence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable because the trial judge failed to address a discrepancy in witness testimony regarding whether the robber had a Jamaican accent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were comprehensive and adequately addressed most discrepancies in the identification evidence.

The court noted that defence counsel had not raised the accent issue at trial and the evidence on the point was not strong.

The young person appealed a conviction, arguing that the trial judge materially misapprehended the evidence.

The appellant contended that the trial judge erred regarding the location of DNA on the complainant's underwear, the distinction between DNA and saliva, whether the complainant was fully clothed, and the extent of parental supervision in the bedroom.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's misstatements were not material and did not vitiate the key findings that supported the conviction.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board transferring him to the maximum secure unit of the Oakridge Mental Health Centre.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision representing the least onerous and restrictive disposition was not unreasonable given the extensive evidence of the appellant's assaultive behaviour and the intractable nature of his illness.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasons were adequate and the result was not unreasonable.

The Court noted that the appellant's aboriginal background was only briefly mentioned before the Board, but drew the Board's attention to the requirement to consider such background in future hearings.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault following an altercation outside a bar.

The central issue at trial was identity, resting almost entirely on the evidence of an eyewitness.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in analyzing the identification evidence, pointing to discrepancies in hair colour and height.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was fully alive to the potential frailties in the identification evidence and reasonably concluded the Crown had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.