Gavin N. MacDonald

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault against his stepdaughter following a jury trial.

He appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the central issues, the position of the defence, and the evidence of post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge's instructions were inadequate, failed to address the defence's position that the conduct never occurred, and did not properly separate the multiple counts in the indictment.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The trial judge had acquitted the appellant of the most serious offences due to grave doubts about the complainant's credibility, but convicted him of sexual assault based entirely on a statement made to a police officer.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by focusing solely on whether the statement was made, without determining whether it was truthful, especially since the complainant's evidence did not correspond to the act described in the statement.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, as well as his sentence, following a domestic incident where he struck his spouse with a shovel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal grounds relating to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter and the application of the W. (D.) test for credibility.

However, the court agreed that the Kienapple principle applied, staying the conviction for assault with a weapon as it arose from the same delict.

The sentence appeal was dismissed, with the court finding the custodial sentence reasonable given the severity of the spousal abuse.

The appellant appealed his conviction and nine-month sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and findings of fact regarding the admissibility of a statement.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the nine-month jail term was deemed appropriate and within the range for the offence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple charges relating to residential break and enters with a sexual element and was declared a long-term offender.

He appealed the trial judge's calculation of his parole ineligibility period.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred by including pre-sentence custody and an unlisted offence in the calculation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the period of parole ineligibility to 6 years and 9 months.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for assault charges, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention in a maximum security facility.

The Court of Appeal found that while the Board reasonably concluded the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety, it erred in principle by failing to adequately consider his cultural and linguistic isolation and whether his current placement was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing ordered.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of attempting to obstruct justice.

The accused had a friend contact the complainant in his sexual assault case, threatening a civil lawsuit and offering a shopping spree if she retracted her complaint.

The trial judge acquitted the accused, finding he lacked the requisite mens rea because he only wanted the complainant to tell what he believed was the truth.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the mens rea is established when an accused intentionally uses corrupt means to dissuade a witness from testifying, regardless of whether the accused's motive was to ensure the truth was told.

A new trial was ordered.

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge with three years' probation imposed on the respondent following a guilty plea for fraud over $5,000 against his employer.

The Crown argued that a conditional discharge is rarely appropriate for such an offence and sought a six-month conditional sentence.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle, as the trial judge properly recognized the respondent's exceptional circumstances, including his status as a first offender, strong community service record, and career aspirations.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and imposed a conditional sentence, emphasizing the seriousness of the breach of trust.

The Crown appealed a youth court disposition of 12 months' probation for a young person who, with an accomplice, robbed a convenience store using an imitation firearm and a knife.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence unfit as it failed to recognize the seriousness of the offence and hold the young person accountable.

The Court also found the youth court judge erred by failing to make a mandatory DNA order.

Acknowledging the young person's exceptional rehabilitative progress, the Court substituted a sentence of three months' deferred custody followed by 12 months' probation, and ordered a DNA sample.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for multiple offences, including home invasion, death threats, obstructing justice, perjury, and fabricating evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions related to the home invasion and threats, finding the Crown's case overwhelming and the appellant's version of events lacking an air of reality.

However, the court set aside the convictions for obstructing justice, perjury, and fabricating evidence, and ordered a new trial on those counts, because the trial judge erroneously relied on the non-existent testimony of a witness who did not testify.

The court substituted a global sentence of six months' imprisonment for the upheld convictions, noting that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the serious nature of the offences.

The appellant was convicted of criminal harassment and sentenced to two years' imprisonment plus three years' probation for sending a letter to a victim he had previously harassed.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge erred in assessing the purpose of the letter and that the penitentiary sentence was harsh and excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant's five prior convictions for harassing the same victim and finding the sentence was necessary to impress upon him that his conduct must stop.

The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to an effective sentence of nine years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the sentencing judge gave insufficient consideration to the mitigating factors of provocation and intoxication, and placed undue emphasis on the aggravating factor of being armed with a knife.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge considered all relevant factors, committed no error in principle, and imposed a sentence within the appropriate range for a violent offence involving multiple stab wounds.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual abuse of a child, arguing the trial judge erred in accepting the complainant's evidence due to inconsistencies, relying on a prior child pornography conviction, and inferring a prior denial was an attempt to protect the appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge appropriately evaluated the evidence, properly used the prior conviction to show sexual interest and opportunity, and reasonably inferred the complainant's prior denial was to protect the appellant given their close relationship.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing there was insufficient evidence that he attempted to penetrate the sleeping complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion based on the appellant's actions and the complainant's testimony of experiencing sharp pain.

The court noted the complainant was not cross-examined on this part of her evidence.

The appellant appealed an eight-year sentence for aggravated assault, arguing the trial judge erred in finding there was no hope for his rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge was justified in taking a dim view of the appellant's rehabilitation prospects based on the pre-sentence report and his criminal record, and concluded the sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed his two-year sentence, introducing new evidence that he was unaware of the immigration consequences under s. 64(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act when he elected that sentence over a term of two years less a day.

The Crown conceded the application of existing authorities.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to two years less a day concurrent on each count.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge's finding that he had anal intercourse with the victim was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant had admitted to the act while the victim was extremely intoxicated, provided no innocent explanation, and there was corroborating evidence of the victim's subsequent soreness.