Dr. Brian Daly

Mr. Stephens, convicted of mischief and failing to comply with a probation order in 2009, sought to reopen his appeal to argue for a not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) defence.

He had previously been found NCR for unrelated 2011 offences.

His summary conviction appeal of the 2009 convictions was dismissed in 2014, and subsequent motions to reopen were also dismissed.

He brought a new motion relying on a 2024 psychiatric assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the new report lacked the cogency to establish an NCR defence or to justify reopening the appeal, especially given the applicant's own inconsistent factual account of the events.

The accused, C.M.L., was convicted of child abduction and the Crown sought a fitness assessment for sentencing.

Two psychiatrists opined she was unfit due to delusional disorder affecting her ability to communicate with counsel or represent herself.

The court, applying the "limited cognitive capacity" test from R. v. Taylor and R. v. Whittle, found that C.M.L. understood the proceedings and their consequences, and was capable of communicating with counsel but chose not to.

Her disruptive behaviour and refusal to cooperate were deemed deliberate strategies rather than indicators of unfitness.

The court concluded there were no reasonable grounds to find her unfit for sentencing and proceeded with the sentencing hearing.

The accused, C.M.L., was charged with child abduction under s. 282(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Throughout her jury trial, she was self-represented and highly disruptive, leading to her repeated exclusion from the courtroom.

The court appointed amici curiae to assist in ensuring a fair trial, including cross-examining a key Crown witness and delivering a jury address on the accused's behalf.

The court also ruled on amendments to the indictment and clarified the meaning of "custody order" under s. 282(1) of the Criminal Code, finding that an interim order requiring the child's return to Ontario constituted a custody order.

The court affirmed the necessity of an expanded role for amici in exceptional cases to prevent a miscarriage of justice, distinguishing it from the Supreme Court's guidance in Ontario v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario.

The defendants pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences involving child pornography, sexual abuse of a two-year-old child, and related crimes.

The Crown sought 12 years imprisonment, while defence counsel argued for 4-5 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years, with credit for 14 months of pre-trial custody at time and a half (21 months), resulting in a net sentence of 5 years and 3 months.

The judgment emphasizes the principles of denunciation and deterrence in child sexual abuse cases while maintaining proportionality to the offenders' degree of responsibility.