Erin Dann

The appellant, J.G., appealed a 15-year-old verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), seeking to substitute convictions for the original charges.

J.G. argued the NCRMD finding was unreasonable due to insufficient medical evidence and that the process was procedurally unfair.

The court reviewed the evidentiary record, including psychological and psychiatric assessments, noting the consensual nature of the original NCRMD verdict.

The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the NCRMD finding, particularly given the consensual nature of the proceedings and the medical opinion that J.G. lacked the capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of his acts when agitated.

The court also found no procedural unfairness warranting a new trial, noting J.G.'s representation by counsel and the support of the Children's Aid Society.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's acceptance of the complainant's evidence regarding the appellant driving a dump truck at her, resulting in the truck becoming stuck on rocks.

The court rejected the appellant's photographic evidence and found no error in the trial judge's refusal to adjourn proceedings to permit a last-minute s. 11(b) Charter application.

The court also found no impropriety in the appointment or conduct of amicus.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a sentence of two years imposed for offences involving her own very young daughter.

The appellant sought to reduce the global sentence to one year by making the sentences concurrent rather than consecutive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the global sentence, finding the two-year sentence entirely deserving of the appellant's conduct.

The court confirmed that a weapons prohibition was mandatory and could not be changed.

However, the court modified the prohibition order based on fresh evidence regarding the appellant's employment prospects after sentence, reducing the age restriction from sixteen to fifteen years in specified paragraphs.

In this criminal trial ruling on a blended voir dire, the Crown sought to admit evidence from other former students and cross-count evidence as similar fact evidence in relation to allegations of sexualized conduct by a teacher toward adolescent male students.

Applying the governing similar fact framework, the court held that the proposed evidence invited impermissible propensity reasoning, raised substantial prejudice concerns, and risked derailing the trial into a character inquiry.

The court further found an air of reality to collusion or innocent taint among several witnesses and held the Crown failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the evidence was untainted.

The proposed similar fact evidence and count-to-count evidence were excluded, although certain direct evidence relating to the charged events remained admissible.

Four accused were convicted of drug trafficking offences committed for the benefit of a criminal organization (the Five Point Generals), conspiracy to traffic controlled substances, and firearms offences following a three-month jury trial based largely on intercepted communications.

The appellants challenged their convictions on five grounds: jury selection procedures, cross-examination limitations of the Crown's expert witness, exclusion of defence expert evidence, admission of extrinsic misconduct evidence, and alleged imbalance in the jury charge.

They also appealed their sentences, primarily challenging the credit awarded for pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all conviction appeals and three of four sentence appeals, allowing only Shane Evans' sentence appeal based on inadequate credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellants were convicted of terrorism-related offences including conspiracy to commit murder for the benefit of a terrorist group and participating in terrorist activity.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the jury selection procedure used at trial.

The trial judge erroneously held that he lacked common law discretion to exclude unsworn jurors while using rotating triers to determine challenges for cause, and instead ordered the use of static triers with all jurors excluded.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's error deprived the appellants of their statutory right to rotating triers with unsworn jurors excluded, resulting in an improperly constituted jury.

The curative proviso could not be applied to remedy this fundamental procedural error.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 16, 2018.

The appellant challenged the Board's finding of a direct connection between his substance abuse and his psychotic state at the time of the index offences, as well as the Board's conclusion that a significant threat to public safety remained.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it was reasonable for the Board to rely on the treating psychiatrist's opinion and to impose a conditional discharge given the appellant's progress balanced against ongoing risks.

The Crown applied to have the offender, S.S., declared a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code, seeking an indeterminate sentence, following his conviction for sexual interference.

The offender resisted, arguing he should be declared a long-term offender under s. 753.1, with a determinate sentence and a long-term supervision order.

The court declined to find the offender a dangerous offender, concluding that the Crown failed to prove a "pattern of repetitive behaviour" or "persistent aggressive behaviour" and that the conduct was "intractable" beyond a reasonable doubt.

Instead, the court found the offender to be a long-term offender, imposing a 10-year term of imprisonment and a 10-year long-term supervision order, finding a reasonable possibility of eventual risk control in the community.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that quashed a conviction under the Lobbying Act.

The respondent, a former senior advisor to the Prime Minister, became executive director of the Canada School of Energy and Environment (CSEE) within the five-year post-employment lobbying prohibition period.

He engaged in communications with Industry Canada officials regarding the extension of an uncommitted portion of a $15 million grant to prevent forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal held that the Lobbying Act was unambiguous and that the respondent's communications constituted prohibited lobbying activity respecting the awarding of a financial benefit.

The Court reinstated the conviction, rejecting the appeal judge's reliance on irrelevant factors such as who initiated the communications and whether government officials considered the conduct to be lobbying.

The appellant, Balwinderpal Mann, appealed a trial judge's finding that he was Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for threatening his father and nephew.

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge applied the correct legal test under s. 16 of the Criminal Code, specifically regarding the "appreciating the nature and quality of the act" and "knowing the conduct was wrong" criteria.

The appellate court found that the trial judge erred by incorporating the emotional impact on victims into the "nature and quality" assessment and by relying on the appellant's impaired ability to make rational choices for the "knowing wrongfulness" test, rather than assessing his capacity to know society's moral standards.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial on all issues was ordered.

The applicant, charged with sexual interference and sexual assault, sought production of records from Tikinagan Child and Family Services and the Ontario Provincial Police relating to the complainant.

The court applied the two-part Mills test for production of third-party records.

Production of Tikinagan records was ordered due to apparent inconsistencies with preliminary inquiry testimony, while production of OPP records was denied as they were deemed speculative and not likely relevant.

Conditions were imposed on the production of the Tikinagan records to protect privacy interests.

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.