Erin Winocur

The defendant pleaded guilty to wilfully and without lawful excuse injuring a dog contrary to section 445(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and failing to comply with a house arrest condition of his recognizance.

The defendant threw his girlfriend's small Yorkshire terrier violently up a flight of stairs, causing bilateral scleral hemorrhage to the dog's eye.

The court imposed a sentence of 60 days custody (already served), three years probation with conditions prohibiting ownership or possession of animals, and a four-year section 447.1 order prohibiting contact with animals.

The court emphasized the defendant's extensive history of violent criminal conduct as the primary aggravating factor.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault following a stabbing incident.

Upon his arrest at an apartment, the police advised him of his right to counsel.

The accused declined to call a lawyer immediately, stating 'not right now.' The police then cautioned him and asked if he wished to say anything, prompting the accused to provide a spontaneous exculpatory statement claiming self-defence.

The accused sought to exclude the statement, arguing it was involuntary and obtained in violation of his ss. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found the statement was voluntary and that the police complied with their Charter obligations, as the accused's decision to delay contacting counsel did not trigger an immediate police duty to hold off questioning.

The statement was ruled admissible.

The applicant sought an order under ss. 7 and 24(1) of the Charter compelling disclosure of edited portions of an Information to Obtain used to secure a search warrant in a firearms prosecution.

The Crown had redacted the ITO to protect informer privilege and provided a summary of the edits.

The court held that challenges to the adequacy of Crown disclosure ordinarily belong to the trial judge and that only exceptional cases justify pre-trial superior court intervention under s. 24(1).

The applicant’s desire to make an informed decision about a Dawson application at the preliminary hearing did not constitute such an exceptional circumstance.

The application was dismissed.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and related offences.

The offences arose from a search of a residence where the offender was staying, which uncovered a loaded machine pistol, ammunition, and drugs in a bedroom also occupied by a toddler.

The court weighed the offender's lengthy criminal record and the serious aggravating factors against his recent good conduct in custody and expressions of remorse.

The court imposed a total sentence of 9 years and 3 months imprisonment, less 3 months credit for pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference arising from allegations by a child complainant against a family friend.

The court held that, although the trial judge correctly identified the governing W. (D.) burden of proof framework, the credibility analysis was undermined by palpable and overriding errors, including improper reliance on prior consistent disclosure, illogical use of an admitted lie to bolster credibility, and a misapprehension of the evidence about post-disclosure behavioural change.

Because the record still contained evidence on which a reasonable trier of fact could convict, the verdict was not set aside as simply unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board imposing a detention order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition given the appellant's history of non-compliance, unstructured lifestyle, and need for daily monitoring to abstain from substance abuse and rule out a schizoaffective disorder diagnosis.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention order.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, while amicus curiae argued for a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight into his schizophrenia and the likelihood that he would stop taking his medication if discharged.

The appeal was dismissed.