Erica Kathryn Whitford

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and his sentence.

The conviction was entered in November 2013 and the sentence of 18 months' custody (after credit of six months) followed by three years' probation was imposed in July 2014.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the trial judge reversed the onus of proof by requiring him to disprove the complainant's account; and second, that the trial judge erred in admitting his police statement.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's analysis and dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, which had become moot as the sentence had been served.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and breach of recognizance arising from a relationship with a 14-year-old.

The defence position was that the alleged events never occurred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge appropriately addressed inconsistencies in the evidence and that the record contained ample corroboration of the complainant's core testimony.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and the victim surcharge was set aside.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering continued detention under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the Board improperly conflated the risk of relapse in mental illness with the risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the evidence supported a finding of significant risk of reoffending based on the appellant's psychosis triggered by substance abuse, his history of violent behaviour, and high actuarial risk scores.

The Board properly rejected a conditional discharge, accepting expert evidence that Mental Health Act provisions would be inadequate to protect the public.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board detention order with privileges up to the possibility of community accommodation.

The appellant challenged the Board's decision on three grounds: insufficient reasons, procedural error due to gaps in the record, and failure to adequately address why a conditional discharge was not the least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's reasoning, no procedural defect, and that the detention order fell within a range of reasonable outcomes based on evidence of ongoing mental illness, delusional thinking, substance abuse, medication non-compliance, and lack of insight into symptoms.

Both defendants were convicted of wilfully promoting hatred contrary to s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

Over three years, they published a community newspaper called Your Ward News that promoted hate against Jews and women, glorified Nazism, denied the Holocaust, and counselled violence against women.

The court imposed consecutive sentences: James Sears received one year incarceration (six months on each count, the procedural maximum for summary conviction); Leroy St. Germaine received a 12-month conditional sentence (six months on each count served consecutively, with house arrest conditions).

The court declined to impose probation on either defendant, finding such restrictions would unduly curtail Charter-protected freedom of expression.

The applicant brought a motion to re-open his trial after conviction, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.

The applicant sought to introduce affidavit evidence regarding ineffective assistance and proposed witnesses.

The court applied the test from R. v. Arabia and R. v. Kowall, considering both the Palmer fresh evidence criteria and whether the application was an attempt to reverse tactical decisions made at trial.

The court found that the decision to call no defence evidence was a deliberate tactical choice made by trial counsel based on professional judgment.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the test for re-opening and that trial counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.

The defendants were convicted of wilfully promoting hatred contrary to s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

Over a three-year period, the defendants published and edited a community newspaper that promoted hate against Jews and women, glorifying Nazism, denying the Holocaust, and demonizing both groups.

The sentencing decision addresses the appropriate custodial sentence, the application of consecutive versus concurrent sentencing, aggravating and mitigating factors, community impact, and the scope of probation conditions.

The court imposed a one-year jail sentence (six months on each count served consecutively) and declined to impose probation restrictions on publishing activities, finding such restrictions would violate Charter-protected freedom of expression.

The defendant brought an application four months after conviction and four days before sentencing to re-open the trial and/or declare a mistrial.

The application raised multiple grounds including ineffective counsel, abuse of process, apprehension of bias, constitutional challenges regarding freedom of expression and jury trial rights, and inadequate reasons for judgment.

The court applied the Palmer test for admissibility of fresh evidence after conviction and found most issues lacked merit.

However, regarding the failure to call a defence, the court determined it could not assess the application without hearing from the defendant and counsel, and without a proffer of the evidence sought to be adduced.

The court allowed the application to proceed by way of affidavit evidence to ensure no miscarriage of justice.

The appellant was convicted of invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and sexual interference involving his step-son, with allegations occurring when the complainant was between 8 and 13 years old.

He was acquitted of assault.

The appellant appealed on five grounds: inconsistent verdicts, admissibility of his videotaped statement to police, jury instructions on credibility across counts, jury instructions on consent, and jury instructions on prior inconsistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the verdicts reconcilable, the admission of evidence proper under s. 653.1 of the Criminal Code, and the jury instructions adequate and not prejudicial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault with a weapon, dangerous operation of a vehicle, possession of cocaine, and two counts of possession of dangerous weapons.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to adequately address weaknesses in eyewitness identification evidence and by misapprehending evidence regarding identification.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge could have expanded his discussion of identification evidence frailties, the overwhelming force of other evidence—including the appellant's own admission of being the driver of the fleeing vehicle, the presence of baseball bats with blood in that vehicle, and the vehicle matching the description provided by assault witnesses—established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice on charges of driving while disqualified and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant argued that the sentencing judge erred by imposing consecutive sentences when a joint submission at the pre-trial stage had included a term that sentences be concurrent.

The Court of Appeal found the record unclear regarding the sentencing judge's intention on whether sentences should be consecutive or concurrent.

The Crown conceded the ambiguity.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced to reflect concurrent sentences.

The appellant was convicted of failing to provide the necessaries of life and assault against her 86-year-old mother.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty of failing to provide necessaries based on leaving her mother on the porch for approximately one hour in freezing temperatures on November 26, 2007.

The appellant was also convicted of assault based on a neighbour's evidence of witnessing the appellant push her mother out the front door.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction for failing to provide necessaries and entering an acquittal, and setting aside the assault conviction and ordering a new trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for arson relating to a fire at his home on April 5, 2011, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The appellant advanced two main arguments: first, that counsel failed to properly cross-examine the only alternative suspect, his former fiancée; and second, that counsel overrode his desire to testify and improperly failed to call other defence evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish the prejudice component of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.

The court noted that the trial judge's conclusion that the alternative suspect's involvement was implausible was not subject to palpable and overriding error, and that the appellant had signed a written acknowledgement indicating his informed decision not to testify.

Appeal from a conviction entered by a Superior Court judge sitting with a jury on charges of sexual assault.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's jury instructions on two grounds: first, that the jury should have been specifically cautioned that the appellant's failure to return to Canada immediately upon learning of the charges could not be used as evidence of guilt; and second, that the jury should have been instructed that if they found the complainant deliberately lied about a specific incident (the "2008 event"), they could use that lie to reject all of her evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the appellant's delay in returning could be relevant to credibility, the trial judge's instructions adequately conveyed to the jury that they must assess the complainant's entire testimony in context and that deliberate lies are relevant to credibility.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm offences arising from a shooting incident on January 31, 2015.

The primary issue at trial was identity.

The Crown alleged the appellant discharged a firearm in a residential street and fled to his girlfriend's apartment.

The defence contended the appellant was asleep in the apartment and that two other men were the ones who fled and entered the building.

The trial judge rejected the defence theory as implausible and accepted identification evidence placing the appellant as the shooter.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the reliability of a key identification witness, citing concerns about cross-racial identification, limited description, initial misidentification in a photo line-up, and the witness's impaired state at the time of the incident.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's careful treatment of the identification evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of attempted fraud over $5,000 and sentenced to five months' imprisonment and 30 months' probation.

He appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings and analysis of evidence were fair and even-handed.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal based on clarification of the law regarding immigration consequences of conditional sentences by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tran.

The court substituted the custodial sentence with an 18-month conditional sentence.

An appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention at Brockville Mental Health Centre following a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing that the Board's conclusion that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, particularly regarding the change in his diagnosis from schizophrenia to antisocial personality disorder and the role of cannabis use.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments and dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion reasonable based on the revised diagnosis, evidence linking cannabis use to psychotic symptoms, a history of substance abuse, and a pattern of aggressive and violent behavior.

The appellant was convicted at trial of being an accessory after the fact to murder, obstructing police, and public mischief.

She appealed only the accessory conviction.

The trial judge found that the Crown had failed to prove that Joshua Barreira, the alleged principal, was guilty of murder.

However, rather than acquitting the appellant, the trial judge convicted her on the basis that she had assisted Chad Davidson (the actual shooter) by serving as a witness to his wedding.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the conviction was based on a theory of liability that fell outside the scope of the indictment, which was limited to the appellant's conduct in relation to Joshua Barreira.

The court entered an acquittal.

An appeal from a December 14, 2016 Ontario Review Board disposition ordering the detention of a not criminally responsible accused at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant, diagnosed with bipolar disorder and substance-use disorder, had committed index offences in 2004 involving robbery and theft.

The Board found the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety due to continued substance abuse and manic symptoms.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence of post-decision disruptive conduct and upheld the detention order, finding the Board reasonably applied the "significant threat" standard and selected the least restrictive disposition appropriate in the circumstances.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering that the appellant remain subject to a conditional discharge.

The appellant, a 62-year-old woman with schizophrenia, was found not criminally responsible for assaulting a five-year-old child in 2011.

The Board concluded she remained a significant threat to public safety based on her history of non-compliance with medication and the risk of decompensation if she ceased treatment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion unreasonable and speculative.

The court held that the evidence did not meet the onerous standard required under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code for maintaining restraints on an NCR accused's liberty, and ordered an absolute discharge.