Emily Sarah Lewsen

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Robert Ashley Williams from his conviction for second degree murder.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not leaving the partial defence of provocation with the jury and by misdirecting the jury on the defence of self-defence.

The court found that the evidence did not support leaving provocation with the jury, as the appellant's actions made the victim's response foreseeable and there was no air of reality to the loss of self-control or suddenness elements.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's self-defence instructions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant, Colin Ramsay, pleaded guilty to communicating with a person under 18 for the purpose of facilitating sexual exploitation.

The Crown proceeded summarily, which carried a six-month mandatory minimum sentence.

The defence challenged the constitutional validity of this mandatory minimum under s.12 of the Charter.

The court, applying the principles of horizontal stare decisis from R. v. Sullivan, found itself bound by R. v. Hems, which held s.172.1(2)(b) of the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional, rendering the mandatory minimum inoperative.

Considering aggravating factors such as abuse of trust, planning, and significant interference with the victim, balanced against mitigating factors including the offender's guilty plea, first-offender status, low risk of recidivism, and his role as sole caregiver for his disabled brother, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day with strict house arrest.

This sentence was deemed to adequately address denunciation and general deterrence while also serving rehabilitative and restorative goals by allowing the offender to continue caring for his brother.

The appellant, Michael Baylis, appealed his sentence for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by not properly considering and weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, specifically by concluding the victim did not provoke the fight, and by failing to apply Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge's analysis of aggravating and mitigating factors was appropriate, given the violent nature of the offences and the appellant's criminal record.

The court also found that a Gladue analysis was not required as the appellant's Indigenous ancestry was unconfirmed and no information was available on how it might have affected his life.

The appellant, Carl Quinton, appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, which was largely based on a confession obtained through a "Mr. Big" undercover operation.

The trial judge failed to hold a voir dire to determine the confession's admissibility under R. v. Hart, accepting defence counsel's mistaken concession that Hart did not apply.

The Court of Appeal found that the operation clearly fell under Hart, and the purported waiver of the voir dire was invalid because counsel was not fully informed and the agreement offered no benefit to the defence.

The Court highlighted significant abuse of process concerns, given the police exploitation of the appellant's vulnerabilities (alcoholism, mental health issues, physical stroke, social isolation, and financial destitution).

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered, with the Court emphasizing the need for rigorous judicial scrutiny of police conduct in Mr. Big operations.