Gary T. Trotter

The appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking based primarily on a police officer's identification of the appellant as the driver of a minivan that sped past the officer at 50 km/h from a distance of 15 feet.

The officer's fleeting observation lasted only seconds and was limited to describing the driver as an Asian male with dark hair.

The appellant's wallet containing an OHIP card with photograph and an inhaler were found in the vehicle, along with seven large garbage bags of marijuana.

The trial judge found these items, combined with the officer's identification, sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the conviction unreasonable and unsupported by evidence.

The appellant, a biological mother, sought access to her child who was adopted by the appellant's mother and her husband in 2015.

The appellant had consented to the adoption and sought no openness agreement at that time.

The application judge dismissed the application on the basis that the appellant lacked standing under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding that the appellant failed to establish either of two recognized exceptions to the rule preventing biological parents from accessing adopted children: (1) establishing a relationship with the child after adoption, or (2) receiving assurances of continued contact from the adoptive parents.

The court also found no evidence that permitting the application to proceed would be in the best interests of the child.

A commercial cold storage lease dispute concerning the interpretation of an energy cost pass-through clause and the tenant's right to renew.

The tenant failed to pay claimed increased energy costs, which the landlord characterized as a default preventing lease renewal.

The application judge found the tenant in breach and declined to grant relief from forfeiture due to lack of due diligence.

On appeal, the tenant challenged only the relief from forfeiture decision, arguing the wrong legal test was applied.

The appellate court upheld the decision, confirming that relief from forfeiture in lease renewal contexts requires a narrower test than the standard three-pronged approach, and that the tenant must demonstrate diligent efforts to comply with lease terms.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claim against the respondent by way of summary judgment.

The claim arose from a management buyout of Xtreme Labs, where the appellants were directors and shareholders.

The respondent had been engaged to provide a valuation of the company, which the appellants alleged significantly undervalued the business, causing them loss.

The motion judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the engagement letter excluded any duty of care owed to the appellants in their capacity as shareholders.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's analysis of the engagement letter, the evidentiary burden, or the appropriateness of summary judgment.

The appellant appealed his conviction for numerous firearms offences arising from an incident in downtown Toronto where he attempted to discard a loaded handgun.

He challenged the conviction on the basis that the trial judge erred in failing to grant a stay of proceedings based on the failure of police to preserve CCTV footage, contrary to section 7 of the Charter.

The trial judge applied the framework from established case law and found no breach of section 7.

The appellant received a remedy through a jury instruction regarding the failure to preserve evidence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The sentence appeal was rendered moot as the appellant had already served his sentence, and leave to appeal sentence was refused.

The appellant was convicted of sexual interference and sexual assault by the trial judge.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on the basis of errors in the trial judge's reasoning regarding the complainant's motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by transforming an absence of evidence of motive to fabricate into a proven lack of motive, which improperly enhanced the complainant's credibility.

The court distinguished between "absence of proved motive" and "proved absence of motive" finding that the former does not logically establish truthfulness.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code for acts committed over five months and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

He appealed on the basis of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Trial counsel had presented telephone records purporting to show over 900 calls between the appellant and the complainant to support a defence of consensual contact, but failed to authenticate the records as required by law.

The trial judge disregarded the unauthenticated records, found the complainant credible, and convicted the appellant.

The Court of Appeal found that trial counsel's failure to address authentication fell below the standard of reasonable competence and prejudiced the appellant in a manner that might have impacted the verdict.

The court admitted fresh evidence, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 19, 2018.

The appellant had been on track for a conditional discharge but experienced two significant periods of decompensation in the year preceding the Board hearing.

The Board expressed serious concerns about inadequate medical investigations, including the absence of neurological examination and CT scan, and noted the appellant's significant decline from a relatively high-functioning individual to one who was confused, amotivated, and unable to manage her own medication.

The Board refused to order a four-month review despite being specifically requested to do so.

An appeal from a Superior Court judgment was heard before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The matter settled prior to or during the appeal hearing.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The appellant appealed her convictions for two counts of robbery with a firearm.

The appeal concerned the validity of "tower dump" production orders for cell phone records obtained from two cell phone towers near the site of a robbery.

The appellant challenged the production orders under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that an Information to Obtain contained material inaccuracies regarding witness statements about cell phone use by one of the perpetrators.

The motion judge denied the appellant's request for leave to cross-examine the affiant and dismissed the Charter application, finding that even after excising the inaccuracies, sufficient grounds remained to support the production orders.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the application of the test for leave to cross-examine and no misapprehension of the evidence regarding the inference of cell phone use during the robbery.

Police officers appealed a motion judge's decision striking their negligence claim against the Crown while allowing their misfeasance in public office claim to proceed.

The officers alleged that Crown attorneys negligently and misfeasantly failed to adequately investigate assault allegations against them during criminal prosecutions, resulting in reputational harm.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision to strike the negligence claim based on established Crown immunity principles, but affirmed that Crown attorneys are not immune from claims of misfeasance in public office.

The court also upheld the motion judge's dismissal of the Crown's motion to strike the action as time-barred, finding that limitations issues should not be determined under Rule 21.01(1)(a) unless pleadings are closed and facts are undisputed.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault offences against his nine-year-old daughter.

The trial judge found the victim's evidence credible and reliable despite inconsistencies and contradictions, and rejected the appellant's denials and the defence theory that the victim had fabricated the allegations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge's reasons adequate and admitting of appellate review, with no error in her analysis of the evidence.

The verdicts were not unreasonable.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge gave inadequate consideration to his Aboriginal background.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding the trial judge gave proper and meaningful consideration to the Gladue Report and relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence.

The sentence of three and one-half years was fit given the age of the victim, seriousness of the abuse, and egregious breach of trust.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a sentence of 26 months imprisonment, less four months credit for pre-trial custody, plus two years' probation for possession of hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant argued the sentence was excessive given the small quantity of drugs, his addiction status, and rehabilitation efforts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's addiction and rehabilitation attempts, but reasonably concluded that exceptional circumstances did not exist.

The court noted the appellant had failed to complete a residential treatment program, continued using opiates, committed further offences while on bail, and failed to appear for sentencing.

An appeal from a Superior Court judgment dated August 1, 2018.

The appellants failed to appear at the hearing scheduled for April 2, 2019.

One appellant declared bankruptcy, though the stay was lifted as it relates to the appeal.

The other appellant left the jurisdiction.

The court scheduled the appeal for May 16, 2019, allowing the respondents to move to dismiss for non-compliance with procedural orders.

The appellants were warned that any adjournment request without prior conference call would likely fail.

The appellant appealed his sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice on charges of driving while disqualified and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant argued that the sentencing judge erred by imposing consecutive sentences when a joint submission at the pre-trial stage had included a term that sentences be concurrent.

The Court of Appeal found the record unclear regarding the sentencing judge's intention on whether sentences should be consecutive or concurrent.

The Crown conceded the ambiguity.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced to reflect concurrent sentences.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of various drugs.

He received a sentence of two years less a day on the aggravated assault conviction with concurrent sentences on drug charges, followed by two years' probation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction on the aggravated assault charge and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The conviction appeal raised three grounds: improper cross-examination by the Crown on a girlfriend's statement, improper splitting of the Crown's case by calling the girlfriend in reply, and alleged misdirection on the defence of self-defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence from two years less a day to 12 months' imprisonment and vacating the victim surcharge.

The appellants were convicted of first-degree murder in the stabbing death of a landlord.

The victim was stabbed 29 times and, while dying, made pointing gestures toward the appellant Nurse before expiring.

The appellants appealed on two grounds: (1) the admissibility of the victim's gestures as hearsay evidence, and (2) the lawfulness of a second forensic analysis of deleted BlackBerry Messenger chats conducted with updated software one year after the initial analysis.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding the gestures admissible under the dying declaration and spontaneous utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule, and that the second analysis of previously extracted data did not constitute a fresh search requiring new authorization.

An appellant who was found not criminally responsible appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention in a forensic hospital.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge but the primary issue was whether the Board should exercise its inquisitorial powers to investigate alternative community residential arrangements.

The Court of Appeal found that while a conditional discharge was not available due to the appellant's significant risk to public safety, the Board had erred in failing to properly exercise its inquisitorial duties to break the residential impasse.

The Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing.

The appellant was convicted after a judge-alone trial of possession of cocaine and crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of probation.

He appealed his convictions on grounds of Charter delay under s. 11(b), arguing the trial judge erred in applying the law of reasonable doubt, and contending his conviction for drug possession was inconsistent with his acquittal on firearm possession charges.

The Crown cross-appealed the sentence of two years less a day plus three years probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the Crown's sentence appeal, finding the delay was reasonable in the transitional post-Jordan context, the convictions were supported by evidence, and the sentence, though lenient, was not demonstrably unfit given the appellant's secondary role in the drug enterprise and rehabilitative efforts.

The appellant was convicted of obstructing justice under s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code for fleeing Canada to avoid testifying as a Crown witness under a subpoena.

Although the subpoena was issued improperly by the Registrar of the Superior Court of Justice, the trial judge held that it had to be obeyed unless set aside.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the invalidity of the subpoena meant the actus reus of the offence was not proven.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the rule against collateral attacks applied and the appellant's evasion of the subpoena had a tendency to obstruct justice regardless of its validity.