Dr. McMaster

The 82-year-old accused was found guilty of manslaughter for the domestic homicide of his wife.

At the time of the offence, the accused was experiencing a major depressive episode and subsequently entered a catatonic state.

The court weighed the gravity of domestic homicide against the accused's age, mental illness, lack of prior record, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by the global pandemic.

The accused was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, reduced to 14 months and 26 days after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and lockdowns, followed by 3 years of probation.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order requiring him to attend an examination for discovery with accommodations, arguing his medical condition (vascular malformation and conversion disorder) made him physically unable to attend without serious risk of harm.

The plaintiff also appealed the Master's costs award, arguing the Master was functus officio when extending the time for the defendant's costs submissions.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Master made no palpable and overriding error in assessing the medical evidence and had the discretion to extend the time for costs submissions before a formal order was entered.

The appellant sought leave to appeal sentence arising from a conviction for possession of child pornography, and also challenged the length of a ten-year long-term offender supervision order.

The court held that the sentencing judge imposed an illegal custodial sentence because the sentence, when combined with pre-sentence custody expressly treated as additional time, exceeded the then-applicable five-year statutory maximum under s. 163.1(4)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Re-sentencing afresh, the court imposed a fit sentence of 4.5 years' imprisonment and granted enhanced pre-sentence custody credit at 1.5:1 under Summers, leaving 16 days remaining.

The challenge to the ten-year supervision order was dismissed because the record amply supported the appellant's very high risk of reoffending and need for close supervision and gradual reintegration.

The offender pleaded guilty to an unprovoked assault causing bodily harm against a stranger while on parole for manslaughter.

The Crown sought a sentence of 3 years and a long-term offender designation.

The court sentenced the offender to 3.5 years (reduced to 6 months with enhanced pre-sentence credit) and 3 years of probation.

The court dismissed the long-term offender application, finding that while the offender posed a risk, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a substantial risk of violent reoffending as required by the legislation.

Two personal injury appeals were heard together to determine the scope of Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding expert witnesses.

The Court of Appeal held that Rule 53.03 does not apply to 'participant experts' (such as treating physicians) or 'non-party experts' who form opinions based on their observation of or participation in the events at issue, rather than being engaged by a party for the litigation.

In Westerhof, the trial judge's erroneous exclusion of such evidence warranted a new trial.

In McCallum, the trial judge correctly admitted the treating practitioners' opinion evidence.

The appellant appealed her first-degree murder convictions for the deaths of her two young daughters.

At trial, she raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder, arguing she believed killing her children was an altruistic act to save them.

The jury rejected the defence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding the concept of 'moral wrongfulness' and in his treatment of the expert psychiatric evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the jury charge, concluding the instructions properly focused on the appellant's capacity to know her acts were morally wrong by societal standards.

The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from an Ontario Review Board disposition.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, but the court held the disposition was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and involved no error of law or miscarriage of justice.

Relying on the attending psychiatrist's evidence, the Board had properly found that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

Deference was owed to the Board's risk-management decision, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his indeterminate sentence as a dangerous offender, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to consider the long-term offender (LTO) option.

The appellant also introduced fresh evidence of a 2010 risk assessment showing rehabilitation progress.

The Court of Appeal applied the curative proviso and dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable possibility the trial judge would have imposed an LTO order in 1998 even with the fresh evidence.

The court noted that the appellant's progress should be assessed by the Parole Board, not through a new sentencing hearing.

The applicant sought to reopen his sentence appeal after being declared a dangerous offender and receiving an indeterminate sentence.

He argued that based on a subsequent Supreme Court of Canada decision, the sentencing judge erred by not considering the long-term offender provisions.

The Court of Appeal held it had jurisdiction to reopen the appeal because the merits were not previously decided.

The court found it was in the interests of justice to reopen the appeal due to the serious error of law and the possibility of a different result at a new sentencing hearing.

The appellant appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board's determination that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety was not unreasonable, relying on the hospital's report and expert testimony.

The Court found the disposition, which allowed the appellant to reside in approved community housing, to be the least onerous and least restrictive option available.

The appeal was dismissed.