Gillian Roberts

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting and killing Arash Bakhtaryani at a banquet hall in Vaughan.

The appellant admitted to the shooting but claimed lawful self-defence.

The jury rejected the self-defence claim and convicted him of second-degree murder.

The trial judge imposed a life sentence with a 16-year parole ineligibility period.

On appeal, the appellant raised five grounds of appeal regarding the admission of hearsay evidence, confirmatory evidence instructions, cross-examination tactics, self-defence instructions, and jury instructions regarding videotape playback.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld both the conviction and sentence.

The appellant appealed her conviction for sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and sexual invitation involving two foster children.

The appeal raised multiple grounds including reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the trial judge's prior involvement in the appellant's former husband's trial, improper elicitation of evidence from a key witness, failure to consider lost evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and alleged errors in the trial judge's reasoning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the trial was fair, counsel was competent, and the trial judge's reasons were adequate and supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, challenging the trial judge's admission of evidence of a firearm found in a vehicle he was operating.

The appellant argued he was arbitrarily detained and that police violated his Charter rights by failing to immediately advise him of the reason for detention and his rights to counsel.

The trial judge found the detention was not arbitrary, as police had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on the cumulative behavior of the occupants, and found Charter violations but admitted the evidence under the R. v. Grant test.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's decision.

The appellant appealed his global sentence of 9 years for armed robbery of a bank, possession of a prohibited firearm, possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, and failure to comply with a youth sentence.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to consider his youth when imposing a consecutive sentence, failed to inquire into his ability to pay a restitution order, and erred in stating he possessed three guns instead of two.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge adequately considered the appellant's youth and ability to pay, and that the factual error regarding the number of guns did not affect the fitness of the global sentence.

The appellant was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm after a severe rear-end collision on a highway.

At trial, he argued that his roadside admission to being the driver was statutorily compelled under the Highway Traffic Act, violating his Charter right to silence, and that the subsequent breath demand was not made 'forthwith'.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the appellant volunteered the information freely and that the brief delay in making the breath demand was justified by public safety concerns at the chaotic accident scene.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his conviction for driving over the legal limit, arguing that his statements to police at the accident scene were statutorily compelled under the Highway Traffic Act and violated his section 7 Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the smell of alcohol alone justified the approved screening device demand and the police had established the driver's identity without relying on the appellant's statements.

The proposed appeal did not raise a question of law of significance to the administration of justice beyond the case.

The appellants, a father, mother, and son, were convicted of four counts of first-degree murder after four family members were found drowned in a submerged vehicle.

On appeal, the son sought to introduce fresh evidence claiming he was a young person at the time of the offences, thereby challenging the adult court's jurisdiction.

The appellants also appealed on grounds relating to the admission of expert evidence on honour killings, instructions on post-offence conduct, the admission of ante-mortem hearsay statements, and the Crown's theory of liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to introduce fresh evidence, finding the proposed documents lacked threshold reliability.

The Court also dismissed all conviction appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for murder.

On the conviction appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in the jury charge by denigrating the defence and failing to properly caution the jury regarding inferences about his age.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the charge fair when read as a whole.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge's ruling that he was at least 16 and a half years old was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence holistically, including the appellant's appearance, criminal record, and peer group, and reasonably concluded he was over 16.

The appellant appealed her conviction and 18-month sentence for procuring a young person to become a prostitute.

She argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that her belief about the complainant's prior involvement in prostitution had to be reasonable, that the verdict was unreasonable, and that the trial judge improperly commented on her failure to testify.

The Court of Appeal found the jury instruction error was harmless, there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and the trial judge's comment was not an improper reference.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge appropriately emphasized deterrence and denunciation.

The appellant was convicted of multiple firearm offences following a high-risk takedown where police seized two loaded handguns.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by dismissing his Corbett application to exclude his prior firearms conviction, dismissing his stay application regarding a lost surveillance video, and improperly instructing the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised her discretion on the Corbett application given the defence's attack on police character, and correctly concluded the lost video did not amount to unacceptable negligence or a Charter breach.

The appellant was convicted of procuring a 14-year-old to become a prostitute and aiding her in engaging in prostitution for gain.

He appealed his convictions, arguing that the closing address by his co-accused's counsel relied on matters not in evidence and prejudiced his right to a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that circumstantial evidence supported the co-accused's counsel's inferences and that the trial judge provided an adequate corrective instruction.

Leave to appeal the sentence was also denied.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possessing child pornography found on his laptop.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his knowledge of the files, specifically whether desktop icons were visible.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the evidence and reasonably concluded the appellant must have seen the icons and known of the files.

The court held the verdict was supported by ample evidence and was not unreasonable.

The appellant was convicted of firearm and drug offences after police found him in the backyard of a townhouse while responding to a 911 call.

The police placed him under investigative detention for trespassing and, after observing suspicious movements indicating he might be armed, conducted a safety search that revealed a loaded handgun and drugs.

On appeal, the appellant argued the safety search was unlawful and the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the safety search was justified by a reasonable belief that officer safety was at stake, and upholding the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence despite minor s. 10 Charter breaches.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences against his stepdaughter, who was six years old at the time of the offences.

At trial, the child refused to testify about the appellant's actions.

The trial judge admitted her videotaped police statement, her preliminary inquiry testimony, and a statement made to an investigating officer.

On appeal, the appellant argued the statements should have been excluded because he could not cross-examine the unresponsive witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the statements were properly admitted under the principled approach to hearsay and that the factors for unresponsive witnesses did not favour exclusion.

The appellant was convicted of historical sexual offences against his stepchildren.

During the investigation, police obtained a general warrant to view and photograph the appellant's anal area to corroborate a complainant's description of a skin tag.

The police executed the warrant ten months after the appellant's initial arrest without re-advising him of his right to counsel.

The Court of Appeal held that this failure violated the appellant's s. 10(b) Charter rights, as the execution of the warrant constituted a distinct detention requiring legal advice.

However, the court found no s. 8 violation, as requiring the appellant to spread his buttocks was a reasonable manner of executing the warrant.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

Appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from an Ontario Review Board disposition.

The appellant challenged findings related to the index offences and the driving prohibition contained in the Board’s current order.

The Court of Appeal held it had no authority on this appeal to revisit the facts underlying the index offences and found the driving prohibition appropriate in light of the offence circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a criminal conviction, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate.

The court held that the reasons clearly explained why the verdict was reached, addressed both the appellant's denial and the complainant's evidentiary frailties, and permitted meaningful appellate review.

The court also found no material misapprehension of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants were convicted of kidnapping with intent to confine after holding an innocent victim for ransom over a drug dispute.

On appeal, they challenged the admission of a confession made by one appellant, arguing it was involuntary, violated Charter rights, and breached spousal privilege.

They also appealed their sentences, arguing they offended the parity principle compared to a co-accused who pleaded guilty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's admission of the statement or refusal to edit out co-accused names.

The sentence appeals were also dismissed, as the sentences reflected the appellants' respective roles and were not a marked departure from the range.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual exploitation and a one-year custodial sentence arising from a sexual relationship with a complainant who was under 18 while he was privately tutoring her.

The court held that the trial judge properly applied the position-of-trust analysis under s. 153(1) of the Criminal Code and did not improperly equate the appellant's role to that of a formal schoolteacher.

The court also rejected the submission that the trial judge applied different standards of scrutiny to the appellant and the complainant, finding that the complainant's evidence had been adequately tested and the credibility findings were entitled to deference.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed because the aggravating features justified a one-year term of imprisonment.

The appellant, an Aboriginal man, was convicted of manslaughter by a jury in the District of Kenora.

He appealed his conviction on the basis that the jury roll from which his petit jury was selected was unrepresentative, as it systematically under-represented Aboriginal on-reserve residents.

The Court of Appeal found that the state failed to make reasonable efforts to address known, long-standing problems with the delivery and return rates of jury questionnaires on reserves.

This failure violated the appellant's rights under sections 11(d) and 11(f) of the Charter.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.