Gregory J. Tweney

The appellant was convicted of criminal negligence causing death while street racing and failing to stop at the scene of an accident.

He appealed his conviction on several grounds, including the trial judge's refusal to allow him to testify about a prior consistent statement made to police five hours after the accident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the statement lacked spontaneity and its exclusion caused no substantial wrong.

The appellant also appealed his sentence, seeking to realign the terms for each count to avoid deportation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act without changing the global sentence.

The Court dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that courts should not impose artificial sentences to circumvent Parliament's will on immigration matters.

The appellant pleaded guilty to fraud over $5000 for his role in a massive investment scheme.

At sentencing, while unrepresented, he disputed many facts but the trial judge refused to strike the plea and sentenced him to 8 years' imprisonment and ordered $35.6 million in restitution.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the guilty plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and informed, and that the undisputed facts satisfied the elements of fraud.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal in part, reducing the restitution order to $20 million to better reflect the appellant's degree of criminal responsibility and the funds he retained control over.

The appellants were convicted of second degree murder following the beating death of a young man by a group of attackers.

They appealed their convictions on multiple grounds, including the admission of after-the-fact conduct, the voluntariness of police statements, alleged Charter breaches, jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, finding no reviewable errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and concluding that trial counsel provided effective representation.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting a videotaped statement of a witness who claimed memory loss at trial, and that the trial judge created a reasonable apprehension of bias by prejudging the witness's veracity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the statement had sufficient indicia of reliability, including being given under oath and corroborated by other evidence.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias, as the trial judge's comments related to the witness's reluctance to testify, not his truthfulness.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his 30-month sentence for criminal negligence causing death by street racing.

He argued that the sentence should be reduced below the penitentiary range to preserve his right to appeal a deportation order under immigration legislation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while deportation consequences may be considered, they cannot take a sentence out of the appropriate range, which for this offence required a penitentiary term as established in a co-accused's case.

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to address material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and misapplied the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's failure to address key inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding whether a robbery actually occurred, deprived the appellant of a fair trial.

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

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 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 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.