Emile Aubrey Carrington

The appellant appealed his convictions for fraud and sexual assault-related offences, arguing the trial judge erred by refusing to sever the counts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly balanced the risk of prejudice against the public interest in a single trial, as the evidence for both sets of charges was inextricably intertwined and demonstrated a similar modus operandi.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court upholding the 15-year global sentence due to the cruelty and torture involved in the offences.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for handgun possession.

They argued that their ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights were breached during a police search following a taxi stop and their subsequent flight, and that the trial judge should have recused himself for reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding that the police had grounds for an investigative detention and the searches were valid protective pat-downs.

Even if the searches exceeded permissible limits, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The bias claim was also rejected.

The sentence appeals were dismissed, as the sentences of 8 years and 5.5 years, while at the high end, revealed no error in principle given the appellants' prior records and the context of the offences.

The appellant pleaded guilty to being masked with intent and failing to comply with an undertaking, receiving a 40-month sentence on a joint submission.

He appealed the sentence, seeking a 16-month reduction to avoid deportation consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that immigration consequences cannot justify what would otherwise be an unfit sentence, and the proposed reduction was well outside the agreed-upon range.

The appellant appealed a three-year equivalent sentence for two serious sexual assaults, seeking a reduction to avoid immigration consequences (deportation to Jamaica).

The appellant introduced fresh evidence of his schizophrenia diagnosis, good behavior, and lack of reoffending over six years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit and a reduction for immigration purposes unwarranted, noting that immigration officials could consider his medical and rehabilitative circumstances.

The young person appealed her sentence of four months closed custody and two months open custody for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The Court of Appeal found the original sentence was fit at the time it was imposed.

However, based on remarkable fresh evidence demonstrating the young person's strict compliance with restrictions, excellent educational progress, and strong family support over the past two years, the court allowed the appeal to permit her to continue her rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed his 5-year sentence for assault and attempted kidnapping after grabbing a stranger off the street and trying to force her into his car.

The trial judge rejected the Crown's proposal for a reformatory sentence, finding it insufficient for deterrence and denunciation given the premeditated and random nature of the offence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's approach or her treatment of the guilty plea, and held the sentence was fit, including when considered in totality with a subsequent 10-year sentence for other offences.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the summary conviction appeal court, which had found that the trial judge misapprehended certain evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the summary conviction appeal judge had jurisdiction to make that finding and committed no error of law.

Finding the case to be fact-driven with no exceptional qualities to justify granting leave, the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for a sexual offence, arguing that the trial judge erred in charging the jury on consent and post-offence conduct, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The complainant testified she was passed out during the sexual contact, while the appellant claimed she initiated it.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the jury instructions and held there was ample evidence to support the conviction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual offences, arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility, in his treatment of the complainant's age and the mistake of age defence under s. 150.1(5) of the Criminal Code, and by misusing evidence of sexual overtures to another young girl.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the complainant's evidence, correctly concluded the appellant did not satisfy the test under s. 150.1(5), and did not misuse the impugned evidence as general propensity evidence.

The appellant appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board's disposition and agreed that certain comments did not need to be incorporated into the formal order.

The Court urged the hospital to make best efforts to obtain linguistic assistance for the appellant to meaningfully participate in rehabilitative efforts.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a two-and-a-half-year sentence for fraud, arguing the trial judge failed to consider the specific immigration consequences of a sentence of two years or more.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was fit given the appellant's serious criminal record for similar offences, and noting the trial judge was aware of the pending deportation order.