Howard C. Cohen

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of possession of firearms while subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition order contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defence sought a conditional sentence based on rehabilitation efforts and compliance with bail conditions over several years.

The Crown argued that denunciation and deterrence required a custodial sentence given the deliberate breach of a lifetime prohibition order and the presence of stolen firearms and ammunition.

The court held that imposing a conditional sentence would constitute an error in principle because it would inadequately address denunciation and deterrence for breaches of weapons prohibition orders.

A custodial sentence was imposed together with probation and a forfeiture order.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in her credibility assessments and misapprehended evidence.

He also sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge gave substantial reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence and that any minor misapprehension of peripheral evidence did not affect the overall credibility assessment.

The court also declined to admit the fresh evidence, noting it would not assist the appellant's credibility.

The appellant appealed his custodial sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by not imposing a conditional sentence.

He submitted the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to the fact he drove to flee an attacker, the victim's prognosis, and his compliance with stringent bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge thoroughly balanced the mitigating factors against the catastrophic injuries caused to the child victim and the appellant's choice to continue driving when he could have stopped.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought a review of a detention order under s. 680 of the Criminal Code.

The reviewing judge upheld the detention on both the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The applicant had a history of violent behaviour and there were concerns for witness safety, justifying detention on the secondary ground.

Furthermore, the tertiary ground was met as the combined effect of the strength of the Crown's case and the circumstances of the offence made detention necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility assessments, as well as the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual findings were reasonably open to him on the evidence and that the appellant failed to demonstrate palpable and overriding error.

The court also upheld the costs award, noting that costs should follow the result of the trial.

The appellant, a wholesale distributor of fresh fruit, suffered produce spoilage due to a widespread power failure that caused its refrigeration equipment to stop working.

The respondent insurer denied the claim based on exclusion clauses for mechanical/electrical breakdown and changes of temperature.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for the insurer and refused the appellant's request for an adjournment to file evidence on the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the refusal to grant an adjournment would not have affected the result and that the change of temperature exclusion clause was clear and unambiguous.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law, holding that the trial judge was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence regarding how the appellant's vehicle contacted him.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, arguing that the trial judge's remarks during closing submissions created a reasonable apprehension of bias and that the respondent failed to mitigate damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's comments were merely instructive cautions to junior counsel and did not indicate pre-determination.

Furthermore, the court upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent's decision not to proceed with the property purchase was driven by uncertain septic system repair costs, meaning the duty to mitigate was not engaged.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

On the conviction appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in drawing an inference of consciousness of guilt from his suicide attempt, in assessing the complainant's cross-examination, and in using prior consistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors by the trial judge and rejecting the proposed fresh evidence under the Palmer test.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge focused almost exclusively on the offence itself.

In light of fresh evidence regarding the appellant's medical condition, the sentence was varied to three years.

The appellant appealed an order made under the Canada Business Corporations Act to the Divisional Court.

The court held that under s. 249 of the Act, an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, not the Divisional Court.

The appeal was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.