Dr. Ramshaw

The court considered whether Daniel Pestill should be declared a high-risk accused following a finding of not criminally responsible for the death of Michael Ryan, and also determined the appropriate sentence for various drug and firearm offences.

The court reviewed expert psychiatric evidence, statutory criteria, and relevant case law, ultimately designating Pestill as a high-risk accused and imposing a six-year sentence for the drug and gun offences, to be served in a hospital.

The decision includes detailed analysis of the factors for high-risk designation and the principles of sentencing for serious drug and firearm offences.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Mason Perry’s appeal from a lifetime driving prohibition imposed as an ancillary order following his conviction for dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving.

The court reviewed the facts, sentencing principles, and comparable cases, finding that the sentencing judge did not err in principle and that the prohibition was not demonstrably unfit.

The court emphasized the individualized nature of sentencing, the importance of public protection, and the relevance of mental health as a mitigating factor.

The decision confirms that lifetime driving prohibitions, though rare, may be appropriate in serious cases, especially where public safety is at risk.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.

He appealed his convictions based on an alleged error in the jury instruction and a request to admit fresh evidence for a partial alibi.

He also appealed his sentence, specifically lifetime prohibition orders under s. 161(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code, arguing their retroactive application violated s. 11(i) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and the fresh evidence application, finding no reversible error in the jury charge and that the fresh evidence lacked due diligence and cogency.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, holding that the retroactive application of s. 161(1)(a) and (b) to offences committed before their 1993 enactment was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter, as there was no compelling temporal justification for their retrospective application in 2005.

This decision concerns a new trial to determine if the accused, René Goudreau, was not criminally responsible (NCR) by reason of mental disorder for the first-degree murder of his mother.

The accused had previously been convicted by a jury, but the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a new trial solely on the NCR issue.

The court considered expert psychiatric evidence, the accused's behaviour before and after the offence, and evidence of extensive planning related to life insurance policies on the victim.

Despite evidence of mental disorder, the court found that the accused failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were wrong.

The court concluded that the accused engaged in detailed planning for financial gain and acted rationally in many aspects, tipping the scales against an NCR finding.