Erin Dann

A lawyer was convicted of three offences arising from conversations with an undercover police officer posing as a refugee claimant.

The Crown alleged the appellant counseled the undercover officer to provide false information to immigration authorities.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence, challenging the validity of the wiretap authorization on the basis of material omissions and misrepresentations in the affidavit.

The trial judge found two errors in the affidavit but concluded they would not have affected the issuance of the authorization.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge's analysis was correct and her credibility findings were entitled to deference.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as the circumstances warranted a significant jail term given the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's professional status.

The appellant, who had died prior to the appeal hearing, was convicted on March 16, 2017 by Justice Randall W. Lalande of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Both the Crown and the appellant's counsel agreed that the conviction represented a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal.

An appellant found not criminally responsible on grounds of mental disorder appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition placing him on a detention order with removal of an alcohol prohibition condition.

The appellant argued the detention order was more restrictive than his previous conditional discharge and that the Board's objectives could have been achieved through maintaining the conditional discharge while removing only the alcohol prohibition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that when viewed holistically with the privileges and prohibitions included, the detention order was actually less restrictive and was justified to allow implementation of a Community Treatment Order and to manage the appellant's risk to public safety.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained a conditional discharge while finding he remained a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible of aggravated assault and related offences involving a near lethal knife attack.

He argued the Board erred in failing to grant an absolute discharge, contending the evidence demonstrated he no longer posed a significant threat and that the Board reversed the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion fell within a range of reasonable outcomes based on positive evidence, including the appellant's insufficient concern about his threat when psychotic, initial reluctance to accept case management, and refusal to switch to long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting a young child and sentenced to three years imprisonment with orders under s. 161(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code prohibiting attendance at places where children under 16 are present and prohibiting employment or volunteer work involving positions of trust or authority over children under 16.

On appeal, the appellant sought to challenge the constitutionality of these orders for the first time, arguing they constitute punishment contrary to s. 11(i) of the Charter and were retroactively applied.

The Crown opposed raising the constitutional challenge on appeal.

The court granted leave to raise the constitutional argument, finding that the interests of justice favoured permitting the appellant to advance the argument despite it not being raised at trial.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated January 26, 2018 (amended February 26, 2018).

The appellant challenged the Board's order regarding his detention and conditions.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's decision fell within the range of reasonable orders having regard to the totality of evidence and the Board's expertise.

The treating psychiatrist's concerns about the appellant's lack of initiative in addressing medical needs and absence of insight into his condition supported the Board's order to maintain hospital oversight to prevent the appellant from disengaging from treatment and presenting a significant risk of serious harm to the public.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence imposed following conviction for theft and money laundering of gold from the Canadian Mint where he was employed.

The sentencing judge imposed a custodial sentence of two years and six months, a restitution order of $190,000, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $190,000.

The appellant limited his appeal to the quantum of the restitution order and the fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the restitution order but reduced the fine in lieu of forfeiture to $130,206.19, finding that the sentencing judge erred by using market value rather than the actual proceeds of crime received by the appellant.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition concerning a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) offender with a long history of serious psychiatric illness, including sexual sadism and pedophilia.

The appellant sought transfer from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care to a less secure all-male facility at either the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) or Brockville Mental Health Centre to access escorted community privileges.

The Review Board majority refused the transfer, citing concerns about diminished quality of life.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to meaningfully consider the appellant's reintegration into society and by failing to assign appropriate weight to the appellant's reasonable preferences and the objective benefits of transfer.

The appellant was convicted after a jury trial of driving while disqualified and failing to stop for police.

He was sentenced to 2½ years in custody on each offence, to be served concurrently.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal rejected the conviction appeal on three grounds: the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the prohibited use of silence, the direction on prior inconsistent statements, and the adverse inference regarding alibi evidence.

However, the Court allowed the sentencing appeal, finding the trial judge failed to apply the principle of totality, did not adequately consider the hardship of segregated custody, and failed to properly analyze evidence regarding mental health and rehabilitative efforts.

The sentence was set aside and replaced with time served.

J.G., a young person with significant cognitive disabilities, sought an extension of time to appeal a 2005 finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR).

The court granted the application, finding that J.G. had a bona fide intention to appeal, a reasonable explanation for the 13-year delay (lack of understanding of NCR consequences and appeal rights due to cognitive limitations), and a meritorious proposed appeal (the NCR verdict was potentially unreasonable given the evidence of impulse control issues rather than an inability to appreciate the physical consequences of his actions).

The court emphasized that the interests of justice strongly favoured granting the extension due to the profound and indefinite deprivation of liberty resulting from the NCR finding for relatively minor offences.

The appellant was convicted of unlawful confinement, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and uttering a death threat following a jury trial.

Approximately three years later, he was declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration.

His appeal was initially abandoned but subsequently reopened.

On appeal, the appellant challenged both his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed as the trial Crown's closing remarks, while potentially problematic, did not cause a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed on the basis that the trial judge violated procedural fairness by denying the appellant the right to make oral submissions during the dangerous offender hearing, instead requiring written submissions only.

A new dangerous offender hearing was ordered.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of criminal harassment by threatening conduct based on her legal name change to that of Mark McBride, with whom she had been obsessed for over a decade.

The trial judge found her not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) due to Delusional Disorder, Erotomanic Type.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the NCRMD verdict was tainted by legal error.

The trial judge had conflated the issues of whether the appellant knew her act was wrong with whether her mental disorder rendered her incapable of knowing it was wrong.

The court substituted convictions and imposed a conditional discharge with one year probation.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition finding that an NCR accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordering a conditional discharge rather than an absolute discharge.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible in 2002 for serious violent offences including aggravated assault, kidnapping, and assault with a weapon, argued the Board's finding was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the appellant poses a significant threat within the meaning of the Criminal Code, based on his serious index offences, ongoing psychiatric symptoms including paranoid delusions, lack of insight into his mental illness, substance abuse, and stated intention to discontinue medication if absolutely discharged.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated June 30, 2017.

The appellant did not contest the Board's finding that he remained a significant threat to public safety or the disposition that he remain detained at the General Forensic Unit at CAMH.

However, he contended the Board acted unreasonably by not including a delegation of authority permitting community living in supervised accommodation when the Hospital deemed it appropriate, as had been included in the previous 2016 disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference, as the evidence clearly showed the appellant was not ready for community living at the time of the hearing.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation sought to vary a sealing order made at trial to gain access to DVD audio recordings of an undercover operative for journalistic purposes.

The trial judge had sealed the recordings to protect the identity of the undercover agent.

The Crown opposed the motion, arguing that the circumstances justifying the original sealing order remained unchanged.

The appellate court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and found that the sealing order was no longer necessary because reasonable alternative measures—specifically, voice and facial alterations—could adequately protect the operative's identity while allowing media access.

The court granted the motion subject to conditions regarding alteration of the recordings.

The appellant appealed both his conviction for drug trafficking and his sentence of 12 months imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the evidence fully justified the conclusion that crack cocaine in the possession of a third party came from the appellant through an intermediary.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider that this was a one-off transaction for a minimal amount of crack cocaine with no profit motive, and by failing to adequately weigh the appellant's rehabilitation efforts and significant immigration consequences.

The sentence was reduced to 160 days, which the appellant had already served through pre-sentence custody.

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed his conviction for fraud in the amount of approximately $1.9 million and his sentence of three and one-half years imprisonment.

The central issue on the conviction appeal was whether the appellant knew that his purported client did not exist.

The trial judge found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant was a knowing participant in the fraudulent scheme.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no reversal of the burden of proof and that the inferences drawn by the trial judge were reasonably available on the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding that the additional six months imposed on the appellant compared to his co-accused was justified by his status as a lawyer and the aggravating role that status played in the commission of the offence.

The defendants, Gerald Lougheed Jr. and Patricia Sorbara, were charged with corruptly promising employment or appointment to Andrew Olivier to induce him to withdraw his candidacy or refrain from becoming a candidate in the Sudbury by-election, contrary to section 96.1(e) of the Election Act.

Sorbara was also charged with agreeing to employ two of Glenn Thibeault's staff to induce Thibeault to become a candidate.

Following a directed verdict application at the end of the Crown's case, the court found that Olivier was not a "candidate" under the Election Act as he was only seeking the Liberal Party nomination, not running in an election to the Legislative Assembly.

The court also found that once Thibeault committed to running, it became impossible for Olivier to become the Liberal candidate, and therefore the defendants could not be convicted of inducing him to refrain from becoming one.

Regarding the Thibeault count, the court found that the agreement to employ campaign staff did not constitute bribery as defined in the Act and did not offend the Act's purpose of ensuring fair elections.

Directed verdicts of acquittal were entered for both defendants on all counts.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated December 21, 2016, which ordered his continued detention in maximum security at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant had previously been detained at Ontario Shores with community privileges.

He advanced two grounds of appeal: first, that the Board misapprehended evidence regarding when he decompensated after being moved to the minimum-security unit; and second, that the Board failed to address the impact of a medication change on his behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and confirming that the Board was aware of and properly considered the medication change in its decision.

The appellant, convicted of first-degree murder for the sexual assault and murder of a 70-year-old woman committed when he was 15 years old, appealed his sentence.

The Crown had sought and obtained an adult sentence rather than a youth sentence.

The appellant challenged the sentencing judge's decision on three grounds: failure to consider whether the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was rebutted, use of the appellant's testimony and denial of guilt as aggravating factors, and failure to properly weigh rehabilitation and integration principles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that although the sentencing judge erred in using the appellant's testimony as an aggravating factor, the error had no impact on the sentence and an adult sentence remained fit given the heinous nature of the crime.