Étienne Lacombe

La Cour d'appel de l'Ontario accueille l'appel de Y.S. contre sa déclaration de culpabilité pour inceste et agression sexuelle, et ordonne un nouveau procès.

L'arrêt porte sur l'insuffisance des motifs du juge du procès, qui n'a pas reconnu l'incidence des incohérences dans le témoignage de la plaignante, ni expliqué comment il a résolu ces contradictions.

La Cour conclut que ces erreurs constituent une erreur judiciaire justifiant l'annulation de la décision.

The appellant, Keldon Halstead, abandoned his appeal from convictions entered by Justice Shaun S. Nakatsuru of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario, constituted by Fairburn A.C.J.O., Trotter J.A., and Harvison Young J.A., noted the abandonment at Mr. Halstead’s request and dismissed the appeal.

The decision is subject to a publication ban on the identity of a witness under section 486.31(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, Tyson Peti, appealed the sentence imposed after pleading guilty to assault with a weapon, mischief, and failing to comply with an undertaking.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge’s decision to impose the Crown’s proposed sentence of 18 months, despite the judge’s reservations about its leniency.

The Court recognized the appellant’s rehabilitative efforts but concluded the sentence was fit given the seriousness of the offence and the appellant’s criminal record.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Ashton Turnquest, appealed a global four-year sentence, specifically challenging the three-year probation order imposed following his release from custody.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no error in principle and held that, given the seriousness of the domestic offences, the three-year probation term was not demonstrably unfit.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, Andrew Smoke and Eric Smoke, appealed their convictions for the second degree murder of Andrew “Scruff” Davis.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both appeals, finding no error in the trial judge’s instructions to the jury regarding aiding and abetting, after-the-fact conduct, and the use of statements attributed to Andrew.

The court also found the verdict against Eric was not unreasonable, given the circumstantial evidence, including DNA and video evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference, sexual exploitation, sexual assault, and uttering a threat, arguing the trial judge made three errors in the jury charge.

The appellant contended the trial judge failed to provide a Villaroman instruction regarding circumstantial evidence, failed to instruct on a motive to fabricate, and failed to instruct that the accused did not have to explain the complainant's motives.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that a Villaroman instruction was not required as the case was not wholly or substantially circumstantial, and that the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the burden of proof without reversing it.

The self-represented appellant appealed a verdict of not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault and mischief charges.

The Crown conceded that the appellant was not advised of his right to request a trial in French pursuant to s. 530(3) of the Criminal Code at his first appearance.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had expressed a choice for a French trial and never waived it in a free and informed manner.

The Crown failed to prove that the breach of language rights did not cause prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the NCR verdict was quashed, and a new trial in French was ordered.

This is an appeal from a sentence where the Crown and appellant jointly requested a reduction in the custodial sentence.

Due to an inadvertent error, the negotiated joint submission of 26 months was not presented to the sentencing judge, who imposed a 36-month sentence.

The sentencing judge deemed herself functus officio to correct the error.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and substituted the sentence to reflect the original 26-month joint submission, less pre-trial credit, to rectify the procedural unfairness.

The appellant, Ivan McManus, appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence imposed for seven counts of robbery.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentencing judge's findings that the appellant met the criteria for a dangerous offender under s. 753(1) of the Criminal Code, demonstrating a high likelihood of harmful recidivism and intractability.

The court also upheld the indeterminate sentence, finding no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public, given the appellant's extensive criminal and institutional history, psychiatric diagnoses, and consistent refusal or failure to engage in treatment programs.

The appellant, Claudio Hernandez Barrios, appealed his conviction for forcible confinement.

The conviction arose from an incident where he prevented the complainant from leaving his bedroom.

The trial judge found him guilty based on his own testimony, where he admitted standing at or in the doorway, thereby preventing her exit.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, claiming he had no intent to block the complainant.

The Court of Appeal applied the stringent standard for misapprehension of evidence, as established in R. v. Lohrer and R. v. Sinclair, and found that the appellant failed to meet this standard.

The Court concluded that the trial judge was entitled to find the offence of forcible confinement proven based on the appellant's own evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition restricting his travel to Ontario.

He sought to expand travel privileges to Quebec for snowboarding.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable given the appellant's significant public safety risk and the potential difficulties in managing his condition or obtaining services out of province.

The court emphasized the deference owed to the Board's risk management decisions.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and flight from police, arguing errors in principle and demonstrable unfitness.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended the respondent's prior custodial sentences and mischaracterized her criminal record as unrelated.

The Court concluded that the original six-month custodial sentence was demonstrably unfit given the gravity of the offences and the respondent's high degree of moral responsibility and history of defying authority.

The appeal was allowed, and an additional 18 months less a day of incarceration was imposed.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence for multiple driving offences, including impaired driving by drug, dangerous driving, impaired driving by alcohol, failure to stop at the scene of an accident, and driving while prohibited.

He received a global sentence of 46 months imprisonment, less credit, and a 10-year driving prohibition.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge properly considered the principles of totality and proportionality.

The court rejected arguments that the judge failed to consider the principle of gradualism or imposed an excessive sentence, emphasizing the appellant's serious criminal record and the nature of the offences, especially in light of legislative changes increasing maximum penalties for driving offences.

This is an appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition that denied an absolute discharge for an individual found not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault charges.

The Board determined that the individual continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a lack of insight into their mental illness, persistent cannabis use, and the resulting mental decompensation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by the evidence, emphasizing the deference owed to the Board's risk assessment.

The Crown appealed from a Court of Appeal decision that set aside convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference of a child complainant, ordering a new trial on the basis that the trial judge misapprehended the child complainant's evidence on a matter of substance and failed to grapple with inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and her mother.

The Supreme Court, for the reasons of the dissenting judge at the Court of Appeal, allowed the appeal and restored the convictions, finding that the trial judge had applied a common sense approach to assessing the evidence of child witnesses, that there was no misapprehension of evidence, and that the reasons were sufficient.

The appellant, A.J., appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge engaged in prohibited stereotypical reasoning and uneven scrutiny of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's credibility was firmly rooted in the evidence and not based on stereotypes.

The court also found no uneven scrutiny, as the trial judge provided detailed and reasoned explanations for his credibility findings regarding both the complainant and the appellant.

The appellant, M.M., appealed a suspended sentence and three years' probation for criminal harassment, arguing the trial judge erred by considering the "gendered context" as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, affirming that it was open to the trial judge to consider the context of criminal harassment often occurring when a woman rejects a man's advances.

The court also upheld the trial judge's decision that a conditional discharge was contrary to the public interest and dismissed the fresh evidence application.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and making sexually explicit materials available to a child.

The appeal challenged these convictions on grounds of the trial judge's misapprehension of the complainant's evidence regarding her mother's presence during the alleged sexual touching, and the sufficiency of the trial judge's reasons.

The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference and ordering a new trial on those counts, finding that the trial judge had materially misapprehended key evidence and provided insufficient reasons.

However, the conviction for making sexually explicit material available was upheld.

The dissenting judge would have dismissed the entire appeal, arguing that the trial judge correctly applied the common sense approach to child witnesses and that reasons were sufficient.

The appellant, diagnosed with schizophrenia and found not criminally responsible for violent acts, appealed a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had concluded she remained a significant threat to public safety and that detention, with community privileges, was the least onerous disposition.

The appellant argued the Board erred in its threat assessment and in ordering detention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasoning was supported by evidence, particularly regarding the appellant's lack of insight into her illness and the risk of decompensation if unsupervised.

The court also found no error in the Board's decision to impose a more restrictive disposition given the changed circumstances, including the failure of a previous treatment regime.