Hannah Freeman

The appellant, Mohammed Hakimzadah, sought leave to appeal a nine-year sentence for multiple counselling offences, including the murder of his wife and her family law lawyer.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario rejected arguments that the sentencing judge failed to provide sufficient notice of a higher sentence or adequately explain reasons.

The court found the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, considering the egregious nature of the offences, which put multiple persons, including a justice system participant, at risk.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed, upholding the original sentence.

This motion was brought by the appellant for a review of a single judge's decision dismissing his application for court-appointed counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant was appealing his conviction and sentence for robbery and related offences, including a dangerous offender declaration.

The single judge had dismissed the application, finding little merit to the appeals and that counsel was not necessary given the straightforward nature of the grounds and the appellant's ability to present his arguments.

The panel of the Court of Appeal found no reason to differ from the single judge's conclusions and dismissed the motion for review.

The appellant, convicted of six counts related to handgun possession, appealed his 38-month sentence.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by imposing a sentence greater than the Crown's proposal without notice and by refusing sufficient credit for restrictive house arrest (Downes credit).

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge misapprehended the Crown's position and committed an error in principle by exceeding the Crown's proposed sentence without allowing further submissions.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to 36 months, incorporating pre-sentence custody and Downes credit.

The appellant, Antonio Ricciardi, appealed his convictions for 17 serious offences involving three women, including attempted kidnapping, confinement, criminal harassment, assault with disguise, and robbery, and his global sentence of 14 years incarceration.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's comprehensive and fair assessment of the evidence or in the global sentence imposed for the long list of criminal offences against vulnerable women.

Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, Archibald McKay, appealed his conviction for theft over $5,000, mischief to property, and possession of break-in tools.

He also appealed his sentence, which he had already served.

On conviction appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred in determining his identification and in concluding that items in his possession were break-in tools.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of guilt were justified by the evidence, including extensive surveillance and the appellant’s proximity to the stolen goods.

The appellant was convicted of multiple weapons offences based entirely on circumstantial evidence after a police officer witnessed a single gunshot and briefly chased the fleeing suspect.

The Crown's case relied on the appellant's DNA found on the recovered handgun, a fleeting description by the officer, and grainy surveillance videos showing the appellant in the vicinity over an hour prior.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's verdict unreasonable, concluding that the totality of the evidence was too generic to establish the appellant's identity as the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed and acquittals were entered.

The appellant appealed the imposition of a lifetime driving prohibition following his guilty pleas to several offences, including driving while disqualified.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in imposing a lifetime prohibition, as the maximum available under the Criminal Code at the time was five years.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the lifetime prohibition, and substituted a five-year driving prohibition, noting the appellant's criminal record and the nature of the offences.

The appellant was convicted of receiving a material benefit from and exercising control for the purpose of facilitating prostitution.

He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment, with 1.5:1 credit for pre-trial custody due to harsh conditions.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility and finding he exercised control, and that the sentence was unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or factual findings.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit given the appellant's lengthy related criminal record and the sentencing judge properly exercised discretion in awarding pre-trial custody credit.

The appellant appealed the 16-year period of parole ineligibility imposed for second degree murder.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to explain the high-end period and improperly treated the absence of remorse as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge adequately explained his decision and properly used the absence of remorse to distinguish the case from precedent, rather than as an aggravating factor.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his three-year global sentence for criminal harassment, uttering threats, and breach of probation.

The appellant had sent hundreds of threatening messages of a sexually violent nature to his former domestic partner over two years, despite police warnings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was within the range for like offences and reflected the serious and aggravating features of the crimes.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter, assault, and uttering threats, as well as his sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on eyewitness recognition evidence and in denying enhanced credit for strict bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's identification conclusion was supported by the totality of the evidence, including threatening Facebook messages.

The sentence appeal was dismissed regarding bail credit, but allowed on consent to grant the appellant one year from release to pay an $810.93 restitution order.

The appellant pled guilty to multiple offences, including robbery and break and enter, committed during a drug-fuelled rampage.

He was sentenced to four and one-half years' imprisonment and ordered to pay $15,698.34 in restitution.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider his ability to pay.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the sentencing judge failed to conduct a meaningful inquiry into the appellant's ability to pay and the impact of the orders on his rehabilitation.

The appeal was allowed and the restitution orders were set aside.

The appellant, a young person, appealed convictions for sexual assault and failing to comply with a youth court order.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's findings on consent, alleging misapprehensions of evidence and uneven scrutiny of testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's assessment of credibility and the inferences drawn from the evidence, finding no reversible error.

The appellant, R.L.S., appealed a 9-month sentence for counseling and touching a child for a sexual purpose, seeking a reduced sentence to avoid deportation.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence proportionate given the high moral culpability, breach of trust, and victim's young age, affirming that immigration consequences do not justify an artificial sentence.

The appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

However, the court varied the prohibition order to more narrowly define prohibited conduct, removing the broad "public park" restriction and refining internet/communication conditions.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault.

The trial judge had found that the complainant was incapable of consenting to sexual activity and that the appellant knew, was reckless, or was wilfully blind to the absence of consent.

The Court of Appeal held that the elements of the offence were made out on the evidence and that the sentence was fit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought review of a prior order dismissing his application for a s. 684 order to appoint counsel for his appeal.

The appellant argued that the reviewing judge misunderstood a ground of appeal related to Charter s. 11(b) and erred in characterizing the appeal as "barely arguable." The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding no misunderstanding of the Charter ground and no error in the characterization for the purpose of counsel appointment.

The application was dismissed, and the matter was set to be spoken to regarding the Crown's proposed response to the ineffective assistance of counsel ground of appeal.

The appellant failed to appear for the hearing of his appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

Benham Yaali sought leave to appeal a 13-year sentence for manslaughter, arguing the sentencing judge erred by considering handgun possession as an aggravating factor and by failing to properly account for provocation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, upholding the sentencing judge's discretion in weighing factors.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed, except for setting aside the victim impact surcharge.

The appellant appealed a sentence of two years less a day for assault causing bodily harm.

He argued the trial judge improperly considered his propensity for violence during a Gardner hearing and mistakenly considered a previous conviction for assaulting his spouse as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's credibility assessment and confirming that the trial judge correctly considered the appellant was on probation for an offence related to the complainant, which was a valid aggravating factor.

The court found the sentence fit given the significant assault and substantial bodily harm.

The appellants, Salvatore Raia and Michael Vitello, appealed their convictions for conspiring to kidnap, sexually assault, and murder Mr. Vitello’s spouse.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's assessment of a key witness's credibility and reliability, and alleged errors in the trial judge's reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessment, which was supported by extensive corroborative evidence.

Minor errors in the trial judge's reasons were deemed peripheral and without impact on the credibility assessment.