Ellen C. Williams

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 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.

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 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.

The accused, N.G., was charged with aggravated assault and forcible confinement following an incident where his partner sustained a severe facial injury.

The trial focused on whether the accused intentionally bit the complainant's nose and whether he forcibly confined her.

The court found both the accused's and the complainant's evidence to be untrustworthy due to inconsistencies, lies, and intoxication.

Despite suspicions regarding the accused's conduct, the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted of both counts.