Holly Loubert

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault, unlawful confinement, obstructing a peace officer, and breach of recognizance.

He appealed his convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, failed to address certain evidence, gave uneven scrutiny to the evidence, and received ineffective legal representation.

The Court of Appeal rejected all grounds of appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence, made reasonable inferences from the complainant's testimony and physical evidence, and that counsel's tactical decisions fell within the ambit of reasonable professional assistance.

A police officer convicted by jury of dangerous driving causing death and sentenced to eight months in prison sought bail pending appeal.

The Crown opposed release, arguing the grounds of appeal lacked merit and that public confidence in the administration of justice required incarceration pending appeal.

The motion judge granted bail, finding the grounds of appeal relating to sufficiency of focus on the dangerous driving and guidance on marked departure were not frivolous and warranted close examination.

The judge held that public interest was best served by allowing the applicant to challenge the conviction before serving the sentence.

The appellant sought a review of a decision by Justice MacPherson denying an extension of bail.

The appellant moved for appointment of counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code and for an adjournment of the review, citing medical evidence of unfitness to self-represent.

The court found the review moot because the appellant had been released from custody by the Vanier Institute.

The court dismissed the application and imposed restrictions on the appellant's ability to bring further motions without written permission, finding her conduct vexatious and an excessive drain on judicial resources.

The appellant appealed a ten-year sentence imposed following his guilty plea to robbery, wearing a disguise, and aggravated assault (times two) arising from the robbery of a jewellery store.

The appellant and a co-accused, disguised with masks, entered the store and attacked the proprietors with a hammer, inflicting 32 hammer strikes and causing serious permanent injuries.

The appellant had an extensive criminal record of 44 offences, including violence and weapons offences, and was bound by two active probation orders at the time of the robbery.

The co-accused received a three-year sentence.

The appellant argued the sentence was disproportionate and failed to account for his surrender and guilty plea.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence justified given the gravity of the crime, the appellant's criminal history, and the lasting impact on the vulnerable victims.

The Toronto Star sought to quash or vary a production order issued under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code, requiring it to produce the full videotaped interview of Matthiew Deiaco, parts of which had been published in articles on human trafficking.

The applicant argued the order was a fishing expedition and failed to balance state interests with media freedom.

The court dismissed the application, finding reasonable grounds for the order, noting the published excerpts suggested further inculpatory evidence and discrepancies with Deiaco's police statement, and that the media's constitutional protection does not import additional requirements beyond the "reasonable grounds to believe" standard, especially when information has been made public.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault entered on June 18, 2013.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to subpoena certain witnesses and lead evidence of negative forensic test results, and (2) that the trial judge erred by not providing a W.D.-like instruction to the jury.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in either argument and dismissed the appeal.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion to review an order of a chambers judge, which had denied her requests for further trial transcripts at public expense, extended her release pending appeal to the scheduled hearing date, and refused to adjourn the appeal.

At the hearing of the motion, the applicant also sought an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the adjournment request, noting a history of last-minute requests.

The Court also dismissed the motion to review the chambers judge's order, finding no reason to interfere with the decisions regarding the transcripts, release terms, or the peremptory hearing date.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario appointed amicus curiae to vet ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised by four appellants.

The amicus was directed to assess the specificity of the grounds alleged and determine whether the claims, if established, were capable of constituting ineffective assistance of counsel.

The amicus was ordered to report back to the court by July 11, 2016, to facilitate moving the appeals forward.

The appellants appealed their convictions for robbery, attempted robbery, and assault arising from three separate incidents that occurred over a 30-minute period.

They argued the verdicts were unreasonable, challenging the trial judge's findings on self-defence, identity, and common intention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were amply supported by the evidence, which established that the appellants acted together as common participants in all three incidents.

Leave to appeal sentence was also denied.

The appellants were convicted of numerous fraud-related offences arising from a widespread credit and debit card skimming scheme operated through a storefront business.

Three of the appellants were also convicted of participating in and committing offences for the benefit of a criminal organization.

On appeal, they challenged the admission of wiretap evidence, the finding that they constituted a criminal organization, and various individual convictions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the wiretap authorization was properly granted and the group met the statutory definition of a criminal organization.

The sentence appeals of the two principal offenders were dismissed, while the sentences of the two lesser offenders were varied in part.

The appellants, members of the Bandidos motorcycle gang, appealed their convictions for multiple counts of first degree murder and manslaughter arising from the execution-style killings of eight fellow gang members.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in ruling that the common law defence of duress was unavailable to persons charged as parties to murder.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law, as the common law defence of duress remains available to parties to murder.

However, the Court dismissed the appeals, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice because there was no air of reality to the duress defence for any of the appellants on the evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions and nine-year sentence for sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation involving two foster children.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence, failing to caution the jury on potential tainting, and failing to enter Kienapple stays.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no error in the admission of similar fact evidence or the jury instructions, but granted Kienapple stays on the sexual assault counts.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the appellant's deteriorating health did not render the otherwise fit sentence unfit.

The appellant appealed her 9-year sentence for manslaughter, arguing it was outside the appropriate range and failed to give meaningful effect to her Aboriginal status under Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge properly considered and distinguished relevant case law, and appropriately balanced rehabilitative and Gladue objectives with the paramount need for public safety given the appellant's substance abuse and risk to the community.

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder.

During the investigation, an undercover police officer posed as an Obeah spiritual advisor and obtained incriminating statements from two of the appellants.

The appellants appealed, arguing that the undercover operation violated their Charter rights to freedom of religion and equality, constituted a 'dirty trick', and that the statements were protected by common law religious privilege.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants' participation was motivated by a desire to obstruct the justice system rather than sincere religious belief, and that the police conduct did not shock the conscience of the community.

The court also upheld the trial judge's decisions regarding an in camera hearing and the refusal to sever the trial of the third co-accused.

The appellant appealed his convictions for uttering a threat to cause death, criminal harassment, and failing to comply with an undertaking, as well as his global sentence of seven months' incarceration.

He argued the verdict was unreasonable due to flawed credibility assessments and that the trial judge created an appearance of bias by extensively questioning witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the credibility assessments were open to the trial judge and the questioning was merely to clarify testimony from unsophisticated witnesses.

The sentence was also upheld as fit.

The appellant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for traffic violations.

During the stop, an officer directed the appellant to place his hands on the seat in front of him, asked for his name, and ran a background check.

The officer subsequently noticed a handgun protruding from a knapsack next to the appellant.

The appellant was convicted of multiple firearms offences and sentenced to nine years in prison.

On appeal, the appellant argued his Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) were violated and that his Aboriginal status was not properly considered in sentencing.

The Court of Appeal found that while the appellant was psychologically detained, there was no breach of ss. 9 or 10(b).

Assuming a s. 8 breach occurred during the background check, the court held the firearm was still admissible under s. 24(2).

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge appropriately weighed the appellant's Aboriginal background against the mandatory minimum sentence and aggravating factors.

The Crown appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada from a Court of Appeal decision that set aside the accused's convictions for physical and sexual abuse and ordered a new trial.

The majority held that the appeal raised a question of law, namely whether the trial judge was required to self-instruct on the dangers of convicting based on frail complainant evidence from the distant past.

Agreeing with the dissenting Court of Appeal justice, the majority found no legal error by the trial judge.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions restored, with one justice dissenting on the basis that the dissent below raised only questions of fact or mixed fact and law, and thus the Court lacked jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching on the sole ground of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

He alleged his counsel incompetently refused to allow him to testify, failed to prepare him to testify, and failed to call a witness regarding an alleged prior false complaint.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish the factual basis for his claims or demonstrate any prejudice resulting from his counsel's conduct.

The appellant pled guilty to manslaughter after accidentally shooting his friend with a prohibited firearm while in a vehicle.

He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge failed to properly apply s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code regarding his Aboriginal heritage and erred in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application of s. 718.2(e) given the mandatory minimum sentence, but the majority held the trial judge failed to give sufficient mitigating weight to the appellant's positive life steps.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence reduced to five years.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for firearms and contraband offences.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the vehicle search was reasonable and that he had knowledge of the contraband.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings regarding the reliability of the confidential informant's tip and the assessment of witness credibility.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was deemed fit given the appellant's prior record for similar offences.