Gregory John Tweney

In a Reference directed by the Minister of Justice under s. 696.3(3)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code regarding the 1959 murder conviction of Steven Murray Truscott, the parties sought directions on the scope of the issues.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the Reference is limited to the issue of fresh evidence, which means material not presented in prior court proceedings (including the 1966 Supreme Court Reference).

The Court further held that the Kaufman Report does not limit the evidence the parties can tender, and that transcripts from the Kaufman investigation are part of the record but must satisfy hearsay exceptions to be admitted for their truth.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent.

Due to recent developments, the appeal became moot.

The Crown abandoned the appeal, and it was dismissed as abandoned.

In the context of a ministerial reference regarding Steven Murray Truscott's 1959 murder conviction, the court addressed two preliminary issues.

First, the court granted the appellant's request to have the panel hear witness evidence viva voce rather than out of court.

Second, the court dismissed a motion by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to permit camera access to the proceedings, finding that recording is prohibited under s. 136(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and the statutory exemptions did not apply because the Crown did not consent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued procedural directions for the hearing of a Reference directed by the Minister of Justice concerning the 1959 murder conviction of the appellant.

The Reference is to be heard as if it were an appeal on the issue of fresh evidence.

The directions address the preparation and sealing of the Record, the scope of the Reference, and the potential release of specific paragraphs of the Kaufman Report.

The appellant, a bank employee, was convicted of fraud after using confidential passwords to redeem $20 million in customers' mutual funds.

He appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misdirected the jury on circumstantial evidence and erred in admitting notes seized from his desk without a warrant.

The Crown appealed the sentence of two years less a day served conditionally.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury instructions adequate and the admission of the notes reasonable under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

However, the Court allowed the Crown's sentence appeal, holding that a large-scale fraud by an employee in a position of trust required a penitentiary sentence for general deterrence.

Giving credit for the conditional sentence served, the Court imposed an additional one-year custodial sentence.

The appellant appealed his murder conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in failing to repeat a re-instruction on subjective intent in response to a jury question, inadequately reviewing defence evidence, and failing to give a W.(D.) instruction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury was adequately instructed on the requirement for subjective intent, the review of evidence was sufficient, and a W.(D.) instruction was not mandatory given the circumstantial evidence instruction provided.

The Crown appealed the sentences imposed on the respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence for the first respondent based on his degree of complicity and personal circumstances.

For the second respondent, the Court noted the sentence should have been custodial, but declined to interfere given the passage of time, completion of an extensive community service order, and personal circumstances.

The Court also declined to set out sentencing principles for the criminal organization charge due to the unique circumstances and joint submission of the parties.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable.

The victim had described his assailant's build, hair, clothing, age, and state of intoxication.

The appellant was found in the area twenty minutes later matching the description, had scratches on his chest, admitted to being in a fight, and was immediately recognized by the victim.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge properly dealt with minor inconsistencies and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed on an offender with 14 prior convictions for drinking and driving.

The Court of Appeal held that a conditional sentence is not statutorily foreclosed where the Crown fails to serve notice of increased penalty under s. 727 of the Criminal Code.

However, the trial judge erred in imposing a conditional sentence given the offender's extensive record.

The Court found a fit sentence would be 12 months in custody, but given the pre-trial custody and the 14 months of the conditional sentence already served under strict conditions, the sentence was varied to time served, plus a lifetime driving prohibition and three years' probation.

The respondent pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 for submitting false invoices to his employer, a hospital network, defrauding them of approximately $900,000.

He was initially sentenced to a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the conditional sentence demonstrably unfit given the large scale of the fraud, the breach of trust, and the need for general deterrence.

The conditional sentence was set aside and a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was imposed.

The respondent physician pleaded guilty to defrauding OHIP of nearly $1 million over seven years through false billings.

The trial judge imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day and a restitution order.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that a conditional sentence was demonstrably unfit given the egregious breach of trust and the paramount need for general deterrence in large-scale frauds against the public health care system.

Taking into account the respondent's unusual mitigating circumstances and the time already served under the conditional sentence, the Court imposed a sentence of 18 months' incarceration.

The appellant was convicted of discharging a firearm with intent to endanger the life of a police officer and related offences after firing a handgun while fleeing from an attempted stop.

He appealed his convictions on several grounds relating to jury instructions, including the elements of the offence, reasonable doubt, and jury exhortation, all of which were dismissed.

He also appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by allowing the police officer to make an improper victim impact statement at the sentencing hearing and by imposing an unduly harsh sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the sentence appeal, finding the victim impact statement procedurally and substantively improper, and reduced the sentence to better reflect the principle of rehabilitation.

The respondent, an accounting manager, pleaded guilty to fraud and theft after stealing $286,636 and defrauding his employer of $1.9 million to participate in a Nigerian mail scam.

The trial judge imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a penitentiary sentence in the range of three to five years was required given the large-scale fraud, breach of trust, and devastating impact on the employer.

Giving credit for the 9.5 months already served under strict conditions, the Court varied the sentence to two years less a day in custody.

The appellant appealed his conviction for attempted murder arising from a shooting during a drug transaction.

He argued the gun discharged accidentally during a struggle initiated by the victim.

The Court of Appeal found two reversible errors in the trial judge's charge to the jury: improperly instructing the jury that a finding of deliberate fabrication by the appellant could be used as positive evidence of guilt without independent evidence of concoction, and failing to instruct the jury on the use of the victim's criminal record and disposition for violence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that he did not receive proper Crown disclosure of wiretap authorizations, supporting affidavits, and related appendices.

The Court of Appeal reserved its decision to allow the parties to file affidavits on the issue.

The respondent filed an affidavit confirming that the relevant disclosure was provided, while the appellant filed no affidavit.

Concluding that proper disclosure was made, the Court dismissed the appeal.

The appellants were convicted of sexual assault involving the gang rape of a 15-year-old girl.

They appealed their convictions and sentences, arguing errors in the Crown's closing argument, jury instructions regarding the application of co-accused evidence, alleged 'Miller' errors in assessing evidence, and the trial judge's handling of a jury request to re-read the complainant's examination-in-chief without the cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no prejudice in the jury instructions or the re-reading of evidence.

The sentence appeals were also dismissed, as the significant penitentiary terms were deemed appropriate for the vicious nature of the offence.

The appellant's conviction for attempted murder was previously substituted with a conviction for aggravated assault by the Court of Appeal.

The court received written submissions on sentencing.

The Crown sought to uphold the original three-year penitentiary term, while the appellant sought a conditional sentence of 12 to 18 months.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence given the deliberate nature of the vehicular assault and the severe injuries caused.

The court imposed a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment, factoring in a two-for-one credit for two months of pre-sentence custody.

The appellant was convicted of incest and indecent assault following a jury trial.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting prior consistent statements without a limiting instruction, allowing witness statements as exhibits, and charging the jury on the wrong offence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made serious errors regarding the prior consistent statements and exhibits.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for attempted murder after striking the victim with his car.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the distance and speed of the vehicle, relying on unadopted hearsay to conclude the appellant had the requisite intent to kill.

The Court set aside the attempted murder conviction and, with the Crown's consent, substituted a conviction for the lesser included offence of aggravated assault.

The appellant pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm and failing to remain at the scene of an accident, receiving an 18-month custodial sentence and a five-year driving prohibition.

The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing for a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the sentence was fit given the appellant's prior impaired driving conviction, high blood alcohol level, and the serious injuries sustained by the victim.