Gary T. Trotter

The appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder arising from the deaths of two sex trade workers found in different locations in the Niagara Region approximately 29 months apart.

Both victims died of blunt-force trauma to the head, and blood of both victims was found in the appellant's residences.

The trial judge admitted evidence of one count as similar act evidence on the other count and refused to sever the counts.

The trial judge also refused to discharge a juror who had a prior acquaintance with the victim's stepmother, and declined to leave manslaughter as an included offence.

The Court of Appeal found multiple errors: the similar act evidence did not meet the required threshold of striking similarity, the juror should have been discharged to preserve the appearance of fairness, and manslaughter should have been left to the jury.

The court also addressed a Charter breach regarding live monitoring conditions in wiretap authorizations but found the evidence admissible under section 24(2).

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 9, 2019.

On consent of both parties, the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent in the amount of $3,250, inclusive of all fees, disbursements, and applicable taxes.

The costs were to be paid in accordance with the directions provided by the trial judge in the original judgment.

The appellant was convicted of sexual and violent offences against a complainant aged 12-14 years over a two-year relationship while the appellant was aged 27-29.

The trial judge imposed an 8-year sentence.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's acceptance of the complainant's evidence despite inconsistencies and admitted lies, the authentication of photographic evidence, reliance on the parents' evidence, and rejection of the defence theory regarding motive to fabricate.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part only with respect to pre-trial custody credit, with the Court finding the sentence otherwise fit given the appellant's position of trust, the complainant's vulnerability, the age disparity, duration of abuse, and instances of violence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for criminal harassment through repeated communications and his sentence of two years less one day imprisonment (with 19 months' credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 5 months less one day to serve), plus three years' probation and a restitution order of $1,423.80.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible error by the trial judge who applied the proper legal test and provided thorough reasons.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part, striking out the restitution order on the basis that the trial judge failed to consider the appellant's ability to pay, which the Crown conceded was lacking.

The custodial portion of the sentence had already been served.

The appellant was convicted of break, enter and assault and two counts of breach of probation, and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment less 24 months' credit for pre-sentence custody, plus two years' probation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged both conviction and sentence.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the trial judge erred by failing to consider exculpatory evidence in his video statement regarding the intentional nature of contact with the homeowner.

The court also rejected numerous other arguments raised for the first time on appeal that were not raised at trial or contained in the trial evidence.

Regarding sentence, the court found no error in principle in the imposition of probationary terms, including non-communication provisions and a requirement to seek counselling for gambling addiction.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was allowed only to the extent of setting aside the victim fine surcharge.

The appellant insurance company appealed a summary judgment order that found the respondents (an adult son, his wife, and their daughter) were covered under the homeowner's policy of the named insured (their mother/mother-in-law) as relatives "living in the same household." The named insured owned a house that served as her primary residence until she entered a nursing home, after which the respondents used it as a cottage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that "household" in insurance law refers to a type of community requiring intimacy, unity, and permanence, not merely physical residence.

The respondents maintained separate lives in the city and did not share a common life with the named insured meeting these requirements.

A lawyer was convicted of three offences arising from conversations with an undercover police officer posing as a refugee claimant.

The Crown alleged the appellant counseled the undercover officer to provide false information to immigration authorities.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence, challenging the validity of the wiretap authorization on the basis of material omissions and misrepresentations in the affidavit.

The trial judge found two errors in the affidavit but concluded they would not have affected the issuance of the authorization.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge's analysis was correct and her credibility findings were entitled to deference.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as the circumstances warranted a significant jail term given the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's professional status.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and ordered detained at Waypoint Centre, a maximum security facility.

On appeal, the appellant sought to have the detention order set aside and a new hearing directed to consider placement at Ontario Shores, a medium security facility.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Review Board's decision, finding that while the appellant's recent conduct was positive, the Board was required to consider the entire picture, including the serious nature of the mental illness, the long history of mental disorder accompanied by serious criminal activity, past non-compliance with medication, and demonstrated history of quick decompensation and violence when medication was discontinued.

The court found the Board's conclusion that a transfer to medium security was premature was not unreasonable.

Appeal from a conviction entered by a Superior Court judge sitting with a jury on charges of sexual assault.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's jury instructions on two grounds: first, that the jury should have been specifically cautioned that the appellant's failure to return to Canada immediately upon learning of the charges could not be used as evidence of guilt; and second, that the jury should have been instructed that if they found the complainant deliberately lied about a specific incident (the "2008 event"), they could use that lie to reject all of her evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the appellant's delay in returning could be relevant to credibility, the trial judge's instructions adequately conveyed to the jury that they must assess the complainant's entire testimony in context and that deliberate lies are relevant to credibility.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for 15 offences including criminal negligence causing death, fail to remain at the scene of a collision, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The appellant abandoned his appeal against conviction.

On the sentence appeal, the court found that while the trial judge erred in considering lack of remorse as an aggravating factor, this error was inconsequential given the numerous other aggravating factors, particularly the appellant's extensive criminal record for similar offences.

The court upheld the sentence as fit but clarified that the s. 743.6 parole eligibility order applied only to the criminal negligence conviction, not the entire sentence, and set aside the victim fine surcharge.

The appellant, who had died prior to the appeal hearing, was convicted on March 16, 2017 by Justice Randall W. Lalande of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Both the Crown and the appellant's counsel agreed that the conviction represented a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered on November 22, 2016, and sentence imposed on September 15, 2017, by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's evidentiary findings, no errors of law in her self-instructions, and no palpable and overriding errors in her application of the law to the facts.

The trial judge did not engage in uneven scrutiny of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his conviction on eight offences arising from a break and enter of a pharmacy in Sudbury on January 26, 2017, and his sentence of three years' imprisonment less 455 days pre-sentence custody credit.

The appellant argued he entered through an open door and should have been convicted of unlawful entry rather than break, enter and theft, and that he was not identified at the scene.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the evidence supported the findings of guilt.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge erred by failing to adequately consider as a mitigating factor the serious injuries the appellant sustained while in pre-sentence custody, including four broken ribs, two punctured lungs, and a brain injury.

The Court reduced the remaining sentence to 300 days on count 1 and 300 days on count 2 (concurrent), such that the sentence was fully served, and set aside the mandatory victim fine surcharge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sentence of 15 months' imprisonment plus one year probation.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in failing to account for his cognitive difficulties and memory problems when assessing his credibility, and that the judge used these difficulties against him.

The Court of Appeal rejected this submission, finding that the trial judge provided ample reasons for rejecting the appellant's testimony that were unrelated to his cognitive difficulties, including identifying patently untrue aspects of his evidence and noting collusion between the appellant and his mother.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The appellant did not identify any error in principle in the sentence, which the court found to be entirely fit.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 23, 2018.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2011 for robbery, uttering threats, assault causing bodily harm, possession of property obtained by crime, and disguise with intent, challenged the Board's decision to maintain a detention order.

The appellant has diagnoses including schizophrenia, borderline intellectual functioning, cannabis use disorder, and antisocial traits.

During the year under review, the appellant had positive urine drug screens and exhibited poor insight into substance use disorder.

The Board found the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered continued detention with opportunity for passes up to seven days when ready.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was not unreasonable and well-supported by evidence.

An appellant found not criminally responsible on grounds of mental disorder appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition placing him on a detention order with removal of an alcohol prohibition condition.

The appellant argued the detention order was more restrictive than his previous conditional discharge and that the Board's objectives could have been achieved through maintaining the conditional discharge while removing only the alcohol prohibition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that when viewed holistically with the privileges and prohibitions included, the detention order was actually less restrictive and was justified to allow implementation of a Community Treatment Order and to manage the appellant's risk to public safety.

Two members of the YBK (Young Buck Killers) criminal organization appealed their convictions for gang-related offences including trafficking in firearms and drugs.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's jury instructions on trafficking charges, territorial jurisdiction, and hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld all convictions, finding no misdirection on the trafficking charges, no jurisdictional error as the offences had meaningful connections to Ontario, and no error in the admission of hearsay evidence.

The applicant's leave to appeal sentence was granted but the sentence of 13 years' imprisonment was upheld as proportionate to the serious offences committed in furtherance of a violent criminal organization.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The conviction followed police surveillance, an undercover purchase, and searches of the appellant's vehicle and apartment.

The appellant appealed, challenging the validity of the apartment search warrant and alleging various Charter violations during the police takedown and strip searches.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding sufficient grounds for the search warrant independent of evidence obtained from an allegedly unlawful strip search, and finding no Charter violations that would warrant a stay of proceedings.

The appellant appealed his conviction under s. 172.2(2) of the Criminal Code for agreeing by telecommunication to commit sexual interference with a child.

The Crown's case involved online conversations between the appellant and an undercover police officer posing as a mother of two daughters.

The trial judge convicted the appellant but failed to make an explicit or implicit finding that the appellant had agreed to commit the offence, which was an essential element of the actus reus.

The Court of Appeal found this to be a reversible error and allowed the appeal, ordering a new trial.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by the Ontario Court of Justice, raising two issues: first, that the trial judge erred in admitting a video-recording of the complainant's police statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code; and second, that the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility and reliability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both arguments, finding that defence counsel had expressly consented to the video-recording's admission and that the trial judge had adequately considered the whole of the complainant's testimony while providing sufficient reasons for the conviction on the one incident.