Ian R. Smith

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault against two young teenagers, appealed his conviction and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's credibility assessment of the complainants, specifically the use of "lack of exaggeration" as a factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's reasoning, interpreting the impugned passages as noting the absence of factors that would diminish credibility rather than using lack of exaggeration as a positive makeweight.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the imposed prison term of 8.5 years was within the appropriate range given the breach of trust and serious consequences for the victims.

The Crown applied for an order to retain seized material for an additional year in a complex criminal investigation involving Fortress Real Capital Inc. and related entities.

The investigation, initiated in 2018, concerned allegations of investor fraud through misrepresentation of property values and investment eligibility.

The court granted the application, finding the investigation to be complex due to the large volume of electronic and hard copy material, the need for professional assistance (computer experts, accountants), and significant delays caused by extensive solicitor-client privilege claims over seized documents.

The court emphasized that while asserting privilege is legitimate, it contributed to the complexity and delay, justifying further detention of the material until June 22, 2021.

The appellant, Roch St. Denis, appealed his sentence.

On consent of both parties, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to 324 days.

This adjustment was made to enable the appellant to immediately apply for parole under s. 127(3) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault and his sentence.

The trial judge had rejected the appellant's section 35(1) defence of property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that even if the appellant believed the complainants were about to unlawfully enter his home, his act of pointing a gun at the head of the female complainant and pulling the trigger was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The court distinguished the case from R. v. Weare on the basis that the appellant had invited the complainants' son to return and knew precisely why they appeared at his door and that they posed no unlawful threat.

The sentence had been served and was dismissed as moot.

The appellant appealed his conviction on identity evidence grounds.

The trial judge had found the complainant's identification of the appellant to be reliable despite a minor discrepancy regarding facial hair.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's treatment of identity evidence.

The trial judge had properly considered corroborative evidence, including a witness who confirmed details of the assailant's clothing, and had not placed undue weight on the complainant's confidence in her identification.

An appeal of a stay of proceedings granted under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a workplace fatality case.

The respondents were charged with offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following the death of a worker at a gold mine.

The trial was scheduled to begin approximately three months beyond the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The application judge stayed the charges, finding the Crown had failed to develop and follow a concrete plan to minimize delay in this particularly complex case.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge had misinterpreted the particularly complex case exception by using the presumptive ceiling as a benchmark for assessing the Crown's conduct, rather than assessing whether the Crown reasonably attempted to minimize delay occasioned by the case's complexity.

The appellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm, uttering a death threat, and carrying a concealed weapon arising from a confrontation on October 4, 2014.

He received a global sentence of five years incarceration, less time served.

The appellant brought two Charter applications under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to stay the charges for unreasonable delay.

The application judge dismissed the first application, finding that although the net delay of approximately 20 months exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court trials, the presumption was rebutted by transitional exceptional circumstances.

The trial judge dismissed the second application after conviction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in calculating the net delay by treating a 66-day period as defence delay when it was not solely attributable to the defence and had not been waived.

The corrected net delay was approximately 23 months.

The Court also found that the application judge inadequately analyzed the transitional exception, failing to properly scrutinize whether delays were reasonably incurred under the pre-Jordan framework.

The Court allowed the appeal and stayed the charges.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice on a youth offender convicted of sexual assault.

The trial judge imposed a deferred custody order under s. 42(5) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, finding that serious bodily harm was not caused.

The Court of Appeal found this conclusion was a clear error based on the trial judge's own findings regarding the life-altering impact of the assault.

The court held that a deferred custody order was not available and the sentence was illegal.

The appeal was allowed, the illegal sentence was set aside, and a six-month nine-day custody and supervision order was imposed with credit for time served, along with a one-year probation order and a mandatory two-year weapons prohibition.

The appellant was convicted of failing to provide the necessaries of life and assault against her 86-year-old mother.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty of failing to provide necessaries based on leaving her mother on the porch for approximately one hour in freezing temperatures on November 26, 2007.

The appellant was also convicted of assault based on a neighbour's evidence of witnessing the appellant push her mother out the front door.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction for failing to provide necessaries and entering an acquittal, and setting aside the assault conviction and ordering a new trial.

An appeal from a conviction and sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant appealed both the conviction entered on October 10, 2017, and the sentence imposed on November 24, 2017.

However, the conviction appeal was not pursued during oral argument by either duty counsel or the appellant, and accordingly the conviction appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence imposed on June 10, 2015 by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Crown conceded that a SOIRA order was improperly made.

The appellant abandoned his appeal on all other grounds.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent of removing the SOIRA order.

The appellant appealed his sentence for sexual interference and sexual assault, both involving the same complainant and occurring within the same date range.

The trial judge imposed consecutive two-year sentences on both counts.

The Court of Appeal found that the two counts were alternative ways of pleading the same incidents rather than distinct offences, and therefore one count should have been stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The court allowed the appeal, stayed count 6, and set aside any victim surcharge.

The appellant appealed his sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice for possession of fentanyl.

The trial judge had imposed consecutive sentences of two years and six years for possession of fentanyl, with both counts relating to drugs found in two different places in the appellant's residence on the same day.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by providing no explanation for making these sentences consecutive when they involved possession of the same drug in the same place on the same day.

The court altered the sentence by making the sentences concurrent.

The Crown conceded that a victim surcharge of $1,200 must be set aside.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence of two years and six months imposed on September 13, 2017 for breach and enter of a commercial premises, robbery of a convenience store, theft, and failure to comply.

The appellant sought a reduction of the sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no joint submission existed and determined the sentence was entirely fit given the circumstances of the robbery and the appellant's extensive criminal record.

The Crown conceded that the victim surcharge must be set aside.

The appeal was allowed only to set aside the victim surcharge; the appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and forcible confinement arising from an altercation with his domestic partner.

The appellant had pled guilty to other related charges.

The trial judge conducted a judge-alone trial and found the appellant guilty on both counts, imposing a global sentence of 3 years and 9 months, less 3 months for pre-sentence bail conditions.

The appellant appealed on grounds of misapprehension of evidence and unreasonableness of verdict.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge provided detailed and comprehensive reasons addressing all concerns raised.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as fit, except the victim fine surcharge was set aside as unconstitutional.

Four appellants appealed their convictions for various offences arising from a large-scale credit card fraud and money laundering scheme operating over several years.

The appellants were convicted of fraud over $5,000, participation in a criminal organization, identity theft, possession of property obtained by crime, and money laundering.

The appellants raised multiple grounds of appeal, including challenges to the single transaction rule, sufficiency of reasons, and the legal test for criminal organization.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most appeals but quashed certain convictions against one appellant that were entered without being charged, and corrected typographical errors in the trial judgment.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault and his designation as a dangerous offender.

The conviction was based on the appellant's assault of a bar patron with a pool cue, causing serious and permanent injuries.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's acceptance of the bar owner's identification evidence and the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant admitted to the assault.

The appellant also challenged the dangerous offender designation, arguing that the two incidents relied upon did not constitute a sufficient pattern of repetitive or persistent aggressive behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's findings of fact or application of law.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery with a firearm and possession of a restricted firearm.

He raised two grounds of appeal: (1) that the trial judge erred in finding his statement voluntary, arguing police threatened to charge his girlfriend with possession of the gun in exchange for his cooperation; and (2) that the trial judge erred in refusing to exclude evidence resulting from a section 8 Charter breach under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's credibility findings regarding the voluntariness of the statement and found no error in the trial judge's balanced application of the three-prong test from R. v. Grant in determining admissibility of the evidence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence for drug importation.

The appellant challenged the jury selection process as unrepresentative, argued he was prejudiced by the jury's lack of knowledge of his custodial status during trial, and contended the police failed to properly investigate matters raised in his defence.

The Court of Appeal rejected all grounds of appeal regarding conviction.

The appellant also argued his 13-year sentence (less 2 years 3 months pre-sentence custody credit) for importing 1.98 kg of street-ready heroin was unduly harsh.

The court found no error in the trial judge's sentencing determination and dismissed the sentence appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, and sought leave to appeal his sentence of five years' imprisonment less nine months' credit for restrictive bail conditions.

The appeal raised four grounds challenging the trial judge's disposition of a Garofoli application regarding the legality of a search warrant: whether the ITO established reasonable and probable grounds for a firearm offence, whether the trial judge erred in refusing leave to cross-examine the ITO affiant, whether the conditions for a telewarrant were satisfied, and whether the CI's information was sufficiently corroborated.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.