Gavin N. MacDonald

Appeal from conviction for robbery, use of an imitation firearm while attempting to commit robbery, obstructing police, and breach of recognizance.

The appellant challenged his convictions for robbery and use of an imitation firearm, arguing that the evidence showed only presence and passive acquiescence in a carjacking.

The trial judge found the appellant was the third perpetrator who entered the victim's vehicle during an armed carjacking.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding that the appellant's conduct in getting into the stolen vehicle, fleeing with the other perpetrators, and the constellation of circumstantial evidence (including cell phone records, similar clothing, and after-the-fact conduct) supported a finding of party liability under section 21 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed his sentence of four years' imprisonment imposed after a re-trial for dangerous driving and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

At his first trial, he had been sentenced to two years less a day.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to consider the fitness of the original sentence before imposing a greater sentence, as the facts at the second trial were essentially the same.

The appeal was allowed and the original sentence of 18 months for dangerous driving and six months consecutive for failing to remain was restored.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual offences against two child complainants and sought leave to appeal a ten-year concurrent sentence.

The court upheld the admission of extrinsic similar fact evidence from two other witnesses, finding the trial judge properly applied the governing framework and reasonably concluded the evidence's probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect on the issue of actus reus and the credibility of a blanket denial.

The court also held that allegedly improper bad character evidence caused no prejudice because the trial judge effectively disregarded it.

Although the sentencing judge erred by treating extrinsic misconduct as aggravating without the required findings, the sentence remained fit and was upheld.

The respondent, previously convicted of sexual interference and subject to a s. 161 prohibition order barring him from school grounds, attended a secondary school for a 'spa day' where he interacted with students.

He pleaded guilty to breaching the order and was granted an absolute discharge at trial.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the sentence failed to apply principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The absolute discharge was set aside and replaced with a six-month custodial sentence followed by three years of probation.

The appellant was convicted of assault and assault with a weapon against his aunt and daughter, and sentenced to nine months' incarceration.

He appealed both conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias by relying on cultural stereotypes, misapprehended evidence, and erred in relying on his daughter's KGB statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no apprehension of bias and no reversible errors in the trial judge's evidentiary findings.

While the trial judge erred in treating the appellant's lack of remorse as an aggravating factor, the Court upheld the nine-month sentence as fit.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 4 years and 3 months for armed robbery, unlawful confinement, and related offences.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's determination that a 5-year global sentence was appropriate given the significant planning and aggravating factors.

However, the Court found errors in the calculation of pre-disposition custody credit, specifically regarding a 3-week period prior to release and a 13-month period spent in custody on unrelated charges that were ultimately stayed.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced by 7 months to 3 years and 8 months.

The appellant appealed her convictions and sentence, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and applied unbalanced scrutiny to her testimony compared to the Crown witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while there was at least one factual error in the reasons, it did not amount to a material misapprehension of the evidence.

The sentence appeal on the obstruct police charge was deemed moot.

The appellant appealed his conviction for extortion, arguing that the trial judge provided inadequate reasons, misapprehended evidence, and misapplied the principles of R. v. W.D. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons, read as a whole, provided a detailed assessment of the evidence and credibility.

The court also found that the trial judge's inferences were supported by the evidence and that she correctly applied the burden of proof.

The appellant appealed his sentence of two years less a day for several firearm offences, arguing the sentencing judge erred by not providing a specific numerical value for the credit allowed for time spent on strict bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a sentencing judge is not required to apply a precise mathematical calculation or precisely identify the credit given for pre-sentence bail.

The sentence was found to be fit given the aggravating factors.

The appellant was convicted of personation and obstructing a peace officer after fleeing a traffic stop where he presented another person's expired driver's licence.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge failed to properly scrutinize the police officer's eyewitness identification and improperly shifted the burden of proof.

He also appealed his 12-month sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the trial judge's credibility and reliability assessments were sound, and the sentence was fit given the appellant's extensive criminal record and prior related convictions.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his detention in a secure forensic unit, arguing it was inappropriately restrictive and he should have been placed in a general forensic unit.

The Court of Appeal applied the standard of review from R. v. Owen and found the disposition was not unreasonable, as the Board did not misapprehend evidence or make unsupported material findings of fact.

The appeal was dismissed.

In a first degree murder appeal arising from a joint trial with antagonistic defences, the appellant's counsel was required to withdraw mid-trial and no replacement counsel could be found despite extensive efforts.

The trial judge refused severance or a mistrial and instead appointed amicus curiae with an expanded mandate.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge asked the wrong question, relied on unsupported considerations, failed to consider highly relevant factors, and thereby unreasonably exercised discretion under the interests of justice standard.

Amicus was not an adequate substitute for counsel in a complex murder trial, and the resulting loss of representation deprived the appellant of a fair trial and caused a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a Summary Conviction Appeal Judge's decision dismissing his appeal against convictions for criminal harassment, uttering threats, and failure to comply with a recognizance, and reducing his sentence to nine months.

The appellant argued the appeal judge erred regarding the application of W.(D.) and the test for an unreasonable verdict.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding no errors of law, and dismissed the fresh evidence application as the proposed evidence could not reasonably be expected to change the verdict.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual exploitation involving a young child.

The case turned largely on credibility and forensic evidence concerning DNA and amylase found on the complainant’s underwear.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge materially misapprehended the forensic evidence by incorrectly finding the appellant’s DNA in the crotch area of the underwear and by misunderstanding the quantity and significance of the DNA deposit.

The misapprehension was central to the trial judge’s credibility analysis, as the forensic evidence was relied upon to corroborate the complainant and discredit the appellant’s denial.

Because the errors played an essential role in the reasoning process leading to conviction, a miscarriage of justice occurred and a new trial was required.

The appellant, a youthful first offender, pleaded guilty to robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and disguise with intent, and was sentenced to two years less a day following a joint submission.

He appealed the sentence, seeking a reduction based on fresh evidence of his post-sentence rehabilitation, including part-time employment and educational progress.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence did not significantly alter the picture presented to the sentencing judge, who had already factored the appellant's high potential for rehabilitation into the lenient sentence.

The appellant brought a motion under s. 683(1)(b) of the Criminal Code to compel the complainant to attend for cross-examination in support of a fresh evidence application.

The proposed fresh evidence consisted of an affidavit from the appellant's daughter alleging the complainant lied at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed fresh evidence did not suggest the complainant lied at trial, but rather that she had been deceived by her husband.

The court concluded that cross-examination of the complainant was not in the interests of justice as there was no reasonable possibility it could undermine her credibility on matters material to the harassment allegations.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and aggravated assault following an altercation where he slashed the victim with a knife.

He raised four grounds of appeal, including fresh evidence of interpreter deficiencies, misapprehension of evidence, improper admission of bad character evidence, and erroneous inferences of credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding the fresh evidence immaterial, the trial judge's conclusions reasonable, the bad character evidence properly contextualized as part of the defence theory, and the credibility inferences appropriate.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision upholding his conviction.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding the appeal judge misapprehended the appellant's trial evidence by concluding he admitted to an assault.

However, the appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's reasons were sufficient and disclosed no error, including the proper use of the appellant's prior inconsistent statements to police and on a 911 call.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for historical sexual offences against his step-nephew and stepson.

He argued ineffective assistance of counsel, improper use of similar act evidence, and errors in assessing his testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice from trial counsel's conduct and no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as fresh medical evidence did not demonstrate inadequate care in prison.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the conditions imposed were not the least onerous and restrictive and seeking supervised accommodation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly applied the criterion and its decision was not unreasonable given the medical evidence, noting the conditions were less restrictive than the previous disposition.