Gary T. Trotter

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for second-degree murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that renewed his conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board's finding that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant posed a significant threat due to the risk of non-compliance with his medication if discharged absolutely without community monitoring.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside a motion judge's order that dismissed his request for an extension of time to perfect his appeal.

The motion judge had noted the appellant previously missed an extended deadline, the appeal lacked merit, and the appellant's pleadings had been struck below.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the motion with costs.

The appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault after randomly attacking and raping a stranger walking home at night.

He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge misapplied Gladue principles by finding his Indigenous heritage moot due to the severity of the offence, and failed to apply principles of proportionality and restraint.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge erred in his Gladue analysis, the 12-year sentence remained fit given the egregious nature of the random attack and the need to prioritize denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant, a private informant, laid an information alleging that a police force and several officers committed seven indictable offences based on his partner's workplace grievances.

Following a pre-enquete, a justice of the peace refused to issue process on six counts due to a lack of evidence on essential elements, and the Crown stayed the seventh count.

The appellant applied for orders in lieu of mandamus and certiorari, which the application judge dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no jurisdictional error by the justice of the peace and no flagrant impropriety in the Crown's stay of proceedings.

The appellant appealed an order confirming emergency orders issued by the municipality's Chief Building Official under the Building Code Act, which required the appellant to pay the costs of terminating an immediate danger posed by an exposed wall.

The appellant argued the application judge failed to consider equitable set-off.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had not raised the issue of equitable set-off before the application judge and it would be contrary to the interests of justice to allow the new argument on appeal.

The appellant appealed a jury conviction for sexual assault, alleging that improper Crown submissions during closing argument and inadequate corrective instructions deprived him of a fair trial.

He also argued the trial judge improperly limited the jury’s ability to rely on the absence of evidence when responding to a deliberation question about blood‑alcohol testing.

The Court of Appeal held the Crown’s submissions did not misstate the law or invite an improper credibility contest and that the jury was properly instructed using the W.(D.) framework.

The trial judge’s response to the jury correctly distinguished between drawing reasonable doubt from evidentiary gaps and speculating about uncalled evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondents moved for an order under r. 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure granting them leave to examine the appellants' former lawyer regarding communications relating to the appeals.

The appellants had sought leave to file Supplementary Notices of Appeal, arguing the current appeals did not reflect their instructions to their former lawyers.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding the instructions given to counsel were highly relevant to the appellants' motion and the respondents had moved promptly.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for sexual offences involving a child, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition maintaining his detention with limited privileges.

He argued the Board misapprehended his request for indirectly supervised community access, provided inadequate reasons, and issued an unreasonable disposition.

The Court of Appeal held the Board understood the dual nature of his requests and sufficiently explained its reasoning.

The psychiatric evidence demonstrated that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety and required continuous supervision, particularly given the risk of reoffending against children.

The Board’s refusal to grant broader indirectly supervised community passes was therefore reasonable.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter, mischief, criminal harassment, uttering threats, and breach of probation, arising from incidents involving his former girlfriend.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions reasonable and supported by strong circumstantial evidence, including text messages.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to correct a Kienapple error, setting aside a duplicative conviction for uttering threats based on the same evidence.

The Court also set aside the victim surcharges as unconstitutional.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder, brought a motion within his appeal for an order directing investigating officers and a forensic scientist to attend for cross-examination.

He sought to support a fresh evidence application regarding DNA records, alleging that the National DNA Data Bank possessed undisclosed original DNA profile data.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable possibility that further relevant material existed, as required by the Trotta and Chaplin tests.

The appellant City of Toronto appealed a trial judgment finding it liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for injuries sustained by the respondent when a glass door shattered at a community centre.

The trial judge found the City breached its duty of care because the door was made of annealed glass rather than the safety glass required by the Ontario Building Code.

On appeal, the City argued the trial judge improperly applied a strict liability standard rather than assessing whether the City took reasonable care to install the correct glass.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly decided the case based on the theories and issues expressly advanced by the parties at trial.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding spousal support, child support, net family property, and costs.

He argued the trial judge erred in imputing income to him and under-attributing income to the respondent.

The respondent conceded minor calculation errors regarding her 2017 income and the equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal corrected the conceded errors but otherwise dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments, income imputations, and costs award were entitled to deference and revealed no errors in principle.

The appellant appealed his three-year global sentence for criminal harassment, uttering threats, and breach of probation.

The appellant had sent hundreds of threatening messages of a sexually violent nature to his former domestic partner over two years, despite police warnings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was within the range for like offences and reflected the serious and aggravating features of the crimes.

The appellant appealed his sentence, specifically challenging a condition in a s. 161 prohibition order that prohibited contact with the adult complainant's parents.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the parents did not fall within the definition of a victim under s. 161(1)(a.1) of the Criminal Code.

The prohibition order was amended to remove the parents, while all other aspects of the sentence remained unchanged.

The applicant, charged with second degree murder, sought a review of his detention order under s. 680(1) of the Criminal Code.

The detention order had been upheld by the trial judge under s. 523(2)(a) before a mistrial was declared due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown challenged the court's jurisdiction to hear the review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that s. 680(1) does not confer jurisdiction to review a bail decision made by a trial judge under s. 523(2)(a).

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for uttering a death threat, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a secure forensic unit.

The appellant argued the Board failed to properly assess the likelihood and seriousness of potential future harm under the Winko test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably relied on expert evidence detailing the appellant's recent clinical deterioration, substance abuse, and threatening behaviour to conclude he remained a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter, assault, and uttering threats, as well as his sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on eyewitness recognition evidence and in denying enhanced credit for strict bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's identification conclusion was supported by the totality of the evidence, including threatening Facebook messages.

The sentence appeal was dismissed regarding bail credit, but allowed on consent to grant the appellant one year from release to pay an $810.93 restitution order.

The appellant, a police officer, was criminally charged following an SIU investigation into a training exercise explosion.

After the charges were stayed, he sued his fellow officers and the police board for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office, alleging they intentionally misled the SIU.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding it was a workplace dispute governed exclusively by the collective agreement and the Police Services Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the essential character of the claim involved an independent criminal investigation outside the workplace, and therefore the court's jurisdiction was not ousted.

The appellant pled guilty to attempted break and enter and was sentenced to a short custodial term, probation, and a lifetime weapons prohibition under s. 109(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

He appealed the weapons prohibition, arguing it prevented him from hunting for food.

The Crown conceded the appeal, agreeing that the offence involved intoxicated confusion with no intent to commit theft and no weapons or violence, making the prohibition discretionary rather than mandatory.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the weapons prohibition order on consent.

The appellant appealed her 8.5-year custodial sentence and a $185,000 fine in lieu of forfeiture following convictions for human trafficking and related sex trade offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit given the serious aggravating circumstances and the paramountcy of denunciation and deterrence.

The court also upheld the fine, concluding it was amply supported by evidence of the profits the appellant derived from her crimes.