Dominic Lamb

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 accused was found guilty of 18 counts of firearms trafficking following an undercover police operation.

He brought applications for a stay of proceedings, alleging entrapment and an abuse of process under s. 7 of the Charter.

He argued that the police exploited his vulnerability as a stateless person and that the use of a volatile police agent in public areas shocked the community.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the police merely provided an opportunity to commit the offences and did not induce the accused.

The court also held that the police conduct, including the monitoring of the agent and the locations of the transactions, did not amount to an abuse of process.

The applicant, charged with firearms offences, brought a Charter application arguing that police lacked reasonable grounds to arrest him without a warrant and unlawfully searched his vehicle incident to arrest.

He also alleged his right to counsel was violated.

The court found that the arresting officer had objectively reasonable grounds to order the arrest based on a combination of witness descriptions, vehicle identification, and a partial licence plate match.

The subsequent search of the vehicle, which yielded a loaded handgun, was deemed a lawful search incident to arrest.

The court also found no violation of the applicant's right to counsel.

The Charter application was dismissed.

The accused brought an application seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing that the delay of 56 months from the date charges were laid exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court deducted 559 days of appellate delay related to a Crown certiorari application and appeal, as well as periods of defence delay and waiver.

The net delay was calculated at 28.5 months, which fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found that the defence failed to meet its onus to demonstrate that the delay was unreasonable, noting that the defence's conduct contributed to the delay.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter and, during the sentencing hearing, sought to bring a Charter application for declaratory relief and damages under s. 24(1) due to his treatment in pre-trial solitary confinement.

The court declined to hear the application, ruling that a criminal sentencing hearing is not the appropriate forum for a complex civil damages claim, which should instead be pursued in the civil courts.

During a trial, the Crown sought to introduce intercepted telephone conversations to show the state of mind of the witnesses, rather than for the truth of their contents.

The defence objected, arguing the Crown must first attempt to refresh the witnesses' memories or establish past recollection recorded.

The court ruled that the intercepted communications were admissible as real evidence without a preliminary voir dire or the need to exhaust the witnesses' memories, allowing the Crown to play the recordings and ask the witnesses to comment.

The Crown sought to admit out-of-court statements made by two accomplices who refused to testify at the accused's trial for second degree murder.

The accomplices had previously given statements to police and one had testified at his own trial.

Applying the principled approach to hearsay, the court found that the police statements met the test for threshold reliability due to corroborating evidence and circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.

However, the court excluded the prior trial testimony of one accomplice, finding that the leading cross-examination by the Crown at that trial undermined its reliability and admission would negatively impact trial fairness.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault with a weapon and unlawful confinement against his spouse.

The offences involved luring the complainant, binding her, whipping her with a belt, and forcing sexual intercourse.

Despite the complainant's plea for a non-custodial sentence to preserve their business and co-parenting arrangement, the court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for serious domestic violence.

The accused was sentenced to two years in penitentiary for sexual assault with a weapon and a concurrent 12-month term for unlawful confinement.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and assault with weapons arising from an incident involving a former spouse following the breakdown of their marriage.

The Crown alleged that the accused lured the complainant upstairs under the pretext of reviewing financial information, restrained her with rope, whipped her with a belt, shaved her pubic hair, and engaged in non-consensual intercourse.

The accused argued that the encounter formed part of consensual sexual role‑playing and that he honestly believed the complainant consented.

The court rejected the defence, finding no evidence that the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain consent as required under s. 273.2 of the Criminal Code and concluding that the complainant did not consent to any aspect of the encounter.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and assault with weapons.