E. Ducharme

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and two counts of breach of recognizance, and sentenced to 40 months' imprisonment in addition to 16 months' pre-trial custody.

The appellant, a first offender with a history of serious mental illness, appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal reviewed institutional records indicating the appellant had resisted treatment in custody.

Given the brutality of the assault and the risk posed to the community, the Court found no error by the trial judge and dismissed the sentence appeal.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision dismissing his application under the Hague Convention for the return of his six-year-old daughter to Peru.

The mother had wrongfully retained the child in Ontario but invoked the Article 13(b) 'grave risk' exception, citing a history of domestic violence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that returning the child to Peru would expose her to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or place her in an intolerable situation.

The appeal was dismissed, allowing the mother's custody claim to proceed in Ontario.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and disguise with intent after a convenience store was robbed by a man wearing a balaclava.

The sole issue at trial was identity.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge failed to consider exculpatory evidence, including DNA from a balaclava found near the scene that did not match the appellant, and discrepancies in the robber's height.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge erred in law by failing to address this exculpatory evidence.

The Court also noted serious flaws in the voice identification procedure used by police.

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

Two insurance salespeople left a brokerage, taking their books of business with them.

The brokerage sued for breach of contract and unlawful conduct conspiracy.

The trial judge found one salesperson breached an oral agreement to purchase his book of business upon departure, and found the other liable for conspiracy.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the breach of contract finding but overturned the conspiracy finding, noting the trial judge failed to apply the requirement that a conspirator must engage in unlawful conduct or intend to harm the plaintiff.

The appellant, a 19-year-old first offender on bail, killed a police officer while fleeing arrest in a stolen vehicle.

He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment and a 10-year driving prohibition.

On appeal, he argued the sentence was unfit and the sentencing judge erred in her findings of fact, admission of a video tribute, and application of sentencing principles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and concluding that the sentence, while at the high end of the range, was not demonstrably unfit given the paramountcy of denunciation and deterrence in these circumstances.

The appellant's disability benefits were suspended for failing to provide required financial information.

Two years later, she requested an extension of time for an internal review, which the Director denied.

The Social Benefits Tribunal reinstated her benefits, finding her disabilities prevented timely compliance.

The Divisional Court overturned the Tribunal's decision, ruling it lacked jurisdiction due to the one-year limitation period for appeals.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was statute-barred and the Director's refusal to extend the time for an internal review was a prescribed decision that could not be appealed.

The appellants appealed convictions arising from a vicious, pre-meditated group assault intended to intimidate a victim from testifying at an upcoming murder trial, arguing that the trial judge failed to provide an adequate Vetrovec warning regarding an unsavoury key witness and misdirected the jury on confirmatory evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the caution, framed consistently with standard jury instructions and reinforced by repeated references to the witness's frailties, was more than adequate in the context of the case as a whole.

It further held that the cited confirmatory evidence was capable of bolstering material aspects of the witness's account and was not misleading.

On sentence, the court found an error in the trial judge's statement that there were no mitigating factors, but concluded that denunciation and deterrence properly predominated and that the four-year global sentence remained fit.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm-related offences, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting evidence obtained during an illegal search of his apartment.

The police had executed a search warrant without reasonable and probable grounds.

The trial judge excluded drug-related evidence but admitted the firearms evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, applying the Grant framework.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the conclusion that the police did not act in bad faith and that there is a heightened public interest in the prosecution of firearms offences.

The appellant, a first-time offender addicted to cocaine, pleaded guilty to trafficking after selling $40 of crack cocaine to an undercover officer.

He successfully completed a drug rehabilitation program, leading the Crown and defence to jointly submit an eight-month conditional sentence.

The sentencing judge rejected the joint submission and imposed a six-month jail term, mistakenly finding the appellant was a 'middleman.' On appeal, the Crown conceded the error.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the sentencing judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to apply the high threshold for departing from a joint submission.

The sentence was varied to an eight-month conditional sentence.

The appellants appealed a decision declaring the respondents were entitled to rescind a second franchise agreement due to the appellants' failure to provide a disclosure document.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the matter was appropriate for an application, that the second agreement was a 'franchise agreement' under the Arthur Wishart Act triggering disclosure obligations, and that the rescission claim was not statute-barred because the limitation period only began when the franchisor disputed the notice of rescission.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision to grant the respondents' motion for non-suit and dismiss his action for slander.

The trial judge had concluded that the words allegedly uttered by the bank's employees were not reasonably capable of carrying a defamatory meaning as a matter of law.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by withdrawing the case from the jury, as the statements were reasonably capable of implying that the appellant was attempting to access his mother's funds fraudulently.

The appeal was allowed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings.

The motion judge had struck the pleadings due to the appellant's failure to pay a prior costs order, lack of diligence in providing financial disclosure, and failure to respond to the respondent's efforts to resolve the matter.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion in refusing an adjournment and striking the pleadings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.