Ellen C. Williams

The offender, a police officer, was found guilty of failing to provide necessaries of life after a conviction for criminal negligence causing death was quashed on appeal.

The court addressed the defence's application to re-open the case and decline conviction on the remaining charge, which was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

The court then proceeded to sentence the offender for failing to provide necessaries of life, imposing an 18-month conditional sentence, considering the reduced moral blameworthiness after the criminal negligence conviction was overturned, and the offender's mental health and the harsher impact of custody on a former police officer.

The applicant, convicted of sexual exploitation and sentenced to 3.5 years, sought bail pending sentence appeal, leave to appeal sentence, and a stay of the SOIRA order.

The court dismissed the bail application, finding the appeal lacked sufficient merit to cause unnecessary hardship if detained.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted as it was not opposed and not frivolous.

The application for a stay of the SOIRA order was adjourned to the panel hearing the sentence appeal, as the jurisdiction of a single judge to grant such a stay was an open question.

The applicants, charged with fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in relation to a bid-rigging scheme, brought an application for the disclosure or third-party production of investigative files held by counsel for cooperating witnesses.

The cooperating witnesses had received immunity or leniency under the Competition Bureau's programs.

The applicants argued that the witnesses' lawyers acted as state agents when interviewing their clients and that solicitor-client privilege over those interview notes was waived.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the lawyers were not acting as state agents, the communications remained protected by solicitor-client privilege, and the privilege was never waived.

Consequently, the materials were not within the Crown's control for Stinchcombe disclosure and could not be produced as third-party records.

The applicants sought to quash charges of fraud on the public and conspiracy to defraud the public, arguing that the evidence identified 38 specific corporate victims, thus requiring individual naming in the indictment.

The Crown contended that the charges were properly framed against the public due to the impossibility of identifying all victims (e.g., individual condominium owners affected by increased fees) and the broad interpretation of "public" in the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the charges were appropriately framed as offenses against the public, consistent with recent jurisprudence where a segment of the community or a regulated industry can constitute "the public" and where a ripple effect on unidentifiable parties exists.

The applicant sought bail pending his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada after his appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.

The court applied the three-part test under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, finding that the application for leave was not frivolous, the applicant would surrender, and detention was not necessary in the public interest.

This decision considered the applicant's age, lack of criminal record, the lower end of seriousness for the firearm offences, and the significant portion of his 30-month sentence that the leave process would cover.

The application for bail was granted.

The appellant, Rene Hamouth, appealed convictions for multiple firearm-related offences and his sentence.

The appeal challenged the lawfulness of the search warrant (Garofoli issue), the trial judge's s. 24(2) Charter analysis regarding the exclusion of firearms and ammunition, and the finding of possession of firearms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals, except for one count related to a non-restricted firearm (Winchester shotgun), which was substituted from s. 95(1) to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court upheld the trial judge's Garofoli analysis, his s. 24(2) analysis (including the consideration of the Crown's concession to exclude incriminating statements and the lack of causal connection between the Charter breaches and the discovery of firearms), and the finding of possession.

Allison Dent appealed her conviction for publishing defamatory libel against Troy Lalonde, arguing the verdict was unreasonable due to misapprehensions of evidence and erroneous "profile" analysis.

The Crown cross-appealed her sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's decision reasonable and solidly grounded in evidence, despite a conceded error regarding an adopted admission by silence which was deemed harmless.

The Court granted leave to appeal the sentence, finding the trial judge erred by giving undue weight to the impact of incarceration on the appellant's child and failing to adequately consider denunciation and deterrence for a "worst-case example" of criminal defamation.

The Court substituted the conditional sentence with a two-year less a day term of incarceration.

The appellant, convicted of importing methamphetamine, appealed his conviction and 12-year sentence.

His grounds of appeal included alleged Charter violations (detention, search, voluntariness of statements) due to a particularized drug lookout at the border, and a flawed jury selection process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety, affirming that routine border inspections, even with a specific lookout, do not trigger Charter detention until a highly intrusive search or communicated subjective intent to detain occurs.

The court also found the appellant's statements voluntary and the jury selection process valid.

The 12-year sentence for importing 25 kg of methamphetamine was deemed fit and within the appropriate range for large-scale drug couriers.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, as well as his sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter after finding a section 8 breach due to a dynamic police entry.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and a motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding no error in the trial judge's section 24(2) analysis.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part, reducing the concurrent sentence for possession of proceeds of crime from five years to two years to comply with the statutory maximum.

The applicants, two police officers charged with theft, obstruct justice, and perjury, applied for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was 41 months and 6 days.

The court deducted periods of defence delay, including an implicit waiver by one co-accused, and delay caused by an inaccurate estimate for the preliminary inquiry.

The court also deducted 10 months as an exceptional circumstance due to the COVID-19 pandemic backlog.

After deductions, the net delay for both applicants fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, convicted of breaking and entering, sought to re-open his dismissed appeal and admit fresh evidence, including his own and his co-accused's affidavits denying his participation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the fresh evidence not reasonably capable of belief due to inconsistencies, implausibilities, and contradictions with trial counsel's evidence and physical evidence.

The court emphasized the finality principle in re-opening appeals and the high threshold for admitting fresh evidence.

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder after a targeted shooting.

The Crown's circumstantial case relied on DNA evidence, video surveillance, and tracking data from the getaway vehicle's Infotainment system.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge made multiple errors in the jury instructions, including cautions on exculpatory eyewitness evidence and after-the-fact conduct.

The appellant also challenged the admission of the Infotainment system data, alleging a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the jury instructions.

Furthermore, the Court held the appellant lacked standing to challenge the search of the vehicle's data because he had fraudulently rented the vehicle and thus had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

This is an appeal from convictions for firearm offences.

The appellants argued Charter breaches (s. 8, 9, 10(b)) and unreasonable verdicts based on misapprehension of evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no Charter breaches, disagreeing with the trial judge's s. 8 finding.

However, it allowed both conviction appeals, finding that the trial judge's conclusion regarding an "exchange of gunfire" was based on a fundamental misapprehension of evidence, and that the use of cellphone photographs to infer possession was improper due to lack of similarity and risk of propensity reasoning.

Ahmed's convictions were quashed and acquittals entered, while Yusuf's convictions were quashed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, Shakeil Wheatle, appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing that the trial judge's jury instructions regarding the Vetrovec caution for an unsavoury witness (A.B.) and the eyewitness identification evidence were deficient.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's instructions were adequate, properly conveying the necessary caution and addressing the frailties of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal concerning convictions and sentencing.

Counsel for both the appellant and the Crown agreed that the matter should be remitted to the trial judge for sentencing on the failure to provide necessaries charge.

The Court ordered the remittal.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal for trial on charges of fraud, possession of proceeds of crime, and money laundering.

He argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction over the transnational fraud and that there was insufficient evidence of the actus reus and mens rea of the offences.

The court dismissed the application, finding a real and substantial link to Canada because the fraudulent scheme used Ontario corporations and bank accounts to receive the proceeds.

The court also found sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could infer the occurrence of fraud, the applicant's knowledge or willful blindness, and his intent to convert or conceal the proceeds.

The appellant, a police officer, arrested an individual who was highly intoxicated by methamphetamine.

He later transferred custody to the OPP without seeking medical assistance, and the individual subsequently died of methamphetamine toxicity.

The trial judge convicted the appellant of failing to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing death.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for failing to provide the necessaries of life, finding the appellant's failure to seek medical assistance was a marked departure from the standard of care.

However, the Court quashed the conviction for criminal negligence causing death, concluding that the trial judge's finding that the appellant deliberately misled the OPP was unreasonable and that causation was not established.

The appellant pleaded guilty to several offences, including assault and assault with a weapon against his pregnant wife, and received a suspended sentence.

Facing certain deportation, he applied to extend the time to appeal his convictions and sentence, arguing his pleas were procedurally flawed and uninformed regarding immigration consequences, and alternatively sought a conditional discharge.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the procedural irregularity caused no prejudice, the appellant was fully informed of the immigration consequences before pleading guilty, and a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest given the serious domestic violence involved.

The appellant, H.C., appealed his conviction for manslaughter by criminal negligence.

The conviction stemmed from the accidental shooting death of a friend, K.P., with the appellant's unsecured sawed-off shotgun.

The trial judge found that H.C.'s failure to safely store the weapon and ammunition was a significant contributing cause of K.P.'s death, despite the gun being loaded and fired by an unknown third party while H.C. was not present.

On appeal, H.C. argued that the loading and firing of the gun constituted intervening acts that severed the chain of causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's application of causation principles from R. v. Maybin, finding that the intervening acts were reasonably foreseeable given the context of intoxication, reckless handling of the gun, and prior accidental discharge, and therefore did not break the chain of causation.

Mr. Hoang was sentenced following convictions for five counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking (heroin, fentanyl, carfentanil, cocaine), two counts of possession of proceeds of crime, and two counts of unsafe storage of a firearm and ammunition.

The court considered aggravating factors including the large quantities of highly toxic opioids, the presence of a firearm, and admitted prior uncharged trafficking offences.

Mitigating factors included his first-time offender status and pro-social network.

The court imposed an 18-year global sentence for the most serious trafficking offences, with other sentences running concurrently, and ordered a half-parole eligibility delay, forfeiture of cash and vehicle, a fine, DNA sample, and firearms prohibition.