6 total
Conviction for sexual assault and dangerous offender designation upheld; jury instructions and sentencing procedure affirmed.
The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and his sentence as a dangerous offender.
He argued the trial judge made several errors in his jury instructions, including failing to charge on the mens rea of consent and improperly instructing on prior consistent statements.
He also argued the sentencing judge committed a Johnson error by failing to consider a long term offender designation before imposing a dangerous offender designation.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the jury charge.
The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the court found no reasonable possibility that a long term offender designation would have been imposed given the expert evidence of the appellant's high risk to reoffend.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed; appellant remains a significant threat to public safety.
The appellant appealed a 2008 disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which ordered his continued detention in a medium security ward.
The Court of Appeal found ample evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.
The Court declined to remit the matter for the imposition of conditions, finding the issue moot because the Board was already conducting a multifaceted hearing that would address the appellant's current circumstances and conditions.
The appeal was dismissed.
Sentence appeal dismissed as the overall sentence was fit despite alleged misapprehension of evidence.
The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge misapprehended evidence regarding his continued abuse of a victim after being released from jail for a similar offence.
The appellant also argued the judge failed to give proper weight to an expert report.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that even if the sentencing judge erred as alleged, the overall sentence imposed was fit.
Conviction for second-degree murder upheld; parole ineligibility reduced to 13 years due to sentencing error.
The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting his wife 13 times and was sentenced to life imprisonment with 15 years of parole ineligibility.
On appeal, he argued that the trial was rendered unfair because the Crown retained and obtained notes from a psychiatrist initially consulted by the defence, breaching privilege.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that privilege was likely waived and no prejudice resulted since the Crown did not lead the evidence.
The Court also dismissed arguments regarding jury instructions on automatism, section 16, and reasonable doubt.
However, the sentence appeal was allowed, and parole ineligibility was reduced to 13 years because the trial judge improperly relied on unproven hearsay evidence of a prior attempted murder as an aggravating factor.
Appeal from convictions and dangerous offender indeterminate sentence dismissed; trial judge's rulings upheld.
The appellant, a native Cree, appealed his convictions for sexual assault, uttering threats, assault, and extortion against two mentally challenged victims, as well as his designation as a dangerous offender and indeterminate sentence.
He argued the trial judge erred in refusing to order production of a support worker's records, admitting bad character evidence, making unsupported factual findings, failing to consider Aboriginal sentencing principles under s. 718.2(e), and that s. 761 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's rulings on production or evidence, and holding that the indeterminate sentence was overwhelmingly supported by the expert evidence despite the failure to expressly consider s. 718.2(e).
Limitation period for childhood incest does not begin until victim discovers causal link through therapy.
The appellant, a victim of childhood incest by her father, brought an action for damages for assault and battery and breach of fiduciary duty when she was 28 years old.
The trial judge held the action was barred by the Limitations Act, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the tort claim was subject to the reasonable discoverability rule, and the limitation period did not begin to run until the appellant entered therapy and realized the causal connection between her injuries and the abuse.
The Court also held that a parent owes a fiduciary duty to their child, and incest constitutes a breach of that duty, which is not subject to the statutory limitation period.