Ernest J. Guiste

Mark Sheldon Roberts appealed a 2020 Ontario Review Board disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the 2020 disposition had been superseded by a 2021 disposition, and new criminal charges and re-admission to a secure forensic unit at CAMH had rendered the factual record stale.

The court reiterated the principle of not deciding moot cases, especially in Review Board matters where no effective remedy can be given for a spent disposition.

The appellant, convicted of multiple domestic violence offences and designated a dangerous offender with an indeterminate sentence, appealed his conviction and sentence.

Grounds included reasonable apprehension of bias, errors in credibility findings, abuse of process regarding a breach of recognizance, and unreasonable post-verdict delay violating Charter s. 11(b) rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, affirming the trial judge's findings on credibility, the dangerous offender designation, and finding no bias or Charter breach due to the exceptional nature of dangerous offender proceedings.

The plaintiff, an identical twin, was arrested and charged with armed robbery after his brother committed the offence.

The plaintiff sued the arresting officers and the police services board for Charter violations, false arrest, excessive force, and negligent investigation.

The court dismissed most claims, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiff given his identical appearance to the suspect and the dynamic circumstances.

However, the court found the police were negligent in their investigation by failing to properly investigate, account for, and document a stolen ring seized from the plaintiff's brother at booking.

The plaintiff was awarded $18,000 in general damages for the stress and stigma of remaining under the robbery charges longer than necessary.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his wrongful dismissal action for delay.

The court applied the contextual test for setting aside administrative dismissals, balancing the explanation for delay, inadvertence, timeliness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.

Finding that the plaintiff adequately explained the delay, moved promptly to set aside the order, and that the defendant suffered no actual prejudice, the court granted the motion and set aside the dismissal order.

The plaintiffs, who are suing for wrongful arrest based on mistaken identity, brought a motion to compel the defendant Toronto Police Services Board to deliver a further and better Affidavit of Documents and comply with previous production orders under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the defendants' Affidavit of Documents failed to properly list and describe the documents for which privilege was claimed.

The court ordered the defendants to deliver a further and better affidavit within 30 days, after which compliance with the production orders could be assessed.

The appellant, Androy Spring, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapplied the principles of R. v. W.(D.) by failing to properly assess his alibi evidence and the totality of the evidence, and by concluding belief in the complainant solely due to disbelief of the accused.

The appellant also contended the trial judge failed to address conflicting evidence regarding the time of the assault and the complainant's memory issues.

The appellate court found no error in the trial judge's application of W.(D.) principles, his assessment of credibility and reliability, or his factual findings regarding the timing of the assault and the alibi.

The trial judge's rejection of the appellant's alibi and acceptance of the complainant's detailed recollection were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for malicious prosecution and Charter breaches, arguing they disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff alleged that the decision to continue a criminal prosecution against him for fraud was motivated by racial profiling.

The court found that the statement of claim lacked sufficient material facts to support the allegations of malice and improper purpose, and struck the claim.

However, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim, finding that the record suggested there were facts that could be pleaded to support the causes of action.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision dismissing his appeal of a conviction.

The appellant raised two grounds: an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and an argument that the fee arrangement with his counsel constituted a prohibited contingency fee under the Solicitors Act.

The Court of Appeal found the appellant's evidence regarding ineffective assistance to be totally incredible and rejected the contingency fee argument as having no basis on the record.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The accused sought a trial adjournment to pursue a battered wife syndrome defence, requiring expert assessment and Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) funding.

The Crown opposed the adjournment, citing significant delays.

The court granted the adjournment reluctantly, imposing strict timelines for obtaining funding and developing the defence, and setting a peremptory trial date.

The court also raised concerns about the defence counsel's budget estimates and the overall pace of the proceedings.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault with a weapon and assault, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest, failure to interview/review disclosure, denial of the right to testify, failure to challenge a search, and inadequate cross-examination.

The court found the appellant's fresh evidence regarding his lack of awareness of counsel's role to be incredible and untruthful.

The appeal was dismissed, as the court found no factual basis for the ineffective assistance claim, no improper conflict of interest, that the decision not to testify was made by the appellant based on counsel's reasonable advice, and that the tactical decision not to challenge the search was reasonable.

The defendant was charged with assaulting his wife.

The trial proceeded over multiple dates with significant issues arising regarding defence counsel's conduct.

The defence counsel failed to meet minimum standards of competence, including incomplete motions, confusing disclosure requests, repetitious and irrelevant questioning, inattentiveness to evidence, incivility, inadequate review of disclosure materials, and an inappropriate allegation of prosecutorial misconduct.

The defence counsel closed his case prematurely without calling all intended witnesses and was unable to answer simple questions from the bench.

The judge declared a mistrial due to the defendant's lack of effective assistance from counsel and referred the matter to the Law Society.

During a criminal trial for sexual offences, the Crown sought to admit a video‑recorded police statement given by the accused.

After a blended voir dire, the court found the statement voluntary but concluded that the accused’s right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter had been infringed because police failed to adequately address obvious language difficulties during the arrest and interview process.

The court held that the officers should have inquired further into the accused’s English comprehension and offered interpreter assistance to ensure meaningful exercise of the right to counsel.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court determined that admission of the statement would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The statement was therefore excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Following the dismissal of a civil action alleging racial and gender discrimination in a police investigation, the defendants sought costs.

Although the plaintiff subjectively believed he had been discriminated against and evidence revealed negligent and substandard police record-keeping, the court had found no discriminatory motive.

The plaintiff argued he was impecunious and sought costs in his favour due to the public importance of the issues.

The court rejected the claim of impecuniosity and applied the principles under Rule 57 and the guidance in Boucher to determine the appropriate award.

Costs were awarded to the defendants in the reduced amount of $120,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff brought an action for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and breaches of sections 7 and 15 of the Charter against the defendant police services board and individual officers.

The claims arose from the plaintiff's arrest and detention for domestic assault and uttering death threats.

The plaintiff alleged that the police failed to properly investigate by not seeking his version of events and discriminated against him based on race and gender, noting that his spouse was not ultimately prosecuted despite admitting to striking him first.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and charge the plaintiff.

The court held that the police's failure to interview the plaintiff was dictated by his Charter rights to silence and counsel, and that the different treatment of the parties was based on the evidence of the plaintiff's escalating violence, not discriminatory motives.