Erin Winocur

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.