Jacob Brooks Millns

In a conviction appeal, the appellant sought production of a post-Hason Crown communication, plus a list of cases reviewed by the prosecution service concerning a forensic psychiatric expert and reasons for selection.

The court applied the two-step appellate production framework requiring a reasonable possibility the materials could assist a fresh-evidence motion and a reasonable possibility of eventual admissibility as fresh evidence.

It held the request was speculative, case-specific concerns from prior proceedings did not establish relevance in this record, and the requested internal review rationale was privileged.

The court further held that any standalone direction, divorced from justification, would not satisfy the relevance threshold.

The production motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a 12-month custodial sentence, less 5 months pre-sentence credit, imposed for disobeying a court order under the Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act, 2017, which prohibited him from contacting or being near the complainant.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to respect the jump principle, as his prior sentences for breach of court orders had never exceeded 90 days.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the jump principle is not iron-clad and departure was warranted given the appellant's 18 prior convictions for disobeying court orders, his lack of rehabilitative progress, and the ineffectiveness of previous sanctions.

The sentence fell within the applicable range and was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant challenged convictions based on admission and use of surreptitious recordings, alleging errors under ss. 31.1 and 31.2 of the Canada Evidence Act and in probative-prejudice analysis.

The court rejected those arguments and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his guilty pleas to operation of a vehicle while disqualified and obstruction of an officer, as well as his sentence of 18 months in custody.

The appellant sought to strike his plea on the basis that he did not understand the consequences of pleading guilty.

The Court of Appeal found no basis for allowing the conviction appeal, noting that the appellant acknowledged understanding the Crown's position and the consequences during the plea inquiry, and provided no fresh evidence to support his claim.

The court also found no error in the sentence, given the appellant's twenty prior similar convictions.

The conviction appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal the sentence was allowed but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and various firearms offences following a traffic stop.

During the stop, police discovered a restricted firearm, ammunition, and an extended magazine in a satchel in the appellant's vehicle, as well as cocaine and oxycodone tablets in the centre console.

The trial judge found that while the appellant's s. 9 Charter rights were not breached, his s. 8 rights were violated when the satchel was searched without legal authority.

However, the trial judge exercised discretion under s. 24(2) of the Charter to admit the evidence.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis despite a minor misstatement regarding the Grant factors, and finding the sentence not manifestly unfit.

The appellant appealed a custodial sentence of two years less a day imposed for aggravated assault.

The assault arose from a parking lot altercation where the appellant stabbed the victim with a screwdriver, causing life-threatening injuries to the chest.

The appellant sought to vary the sentence to a conditional sentence based on fresh evidence regarding his aggressive bladder cancer diagnosis and ongoing medical treatment requirements.

The sentencing judge had specifically crafted the custodial sentence to ensure access to adequate healthcare facilities.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's medical needs were being adequately addressed within the correctional facility and through arrangements with local health facilities, and that the sentencing judge had not erred in principle or imposed a demonstrably unfit sentence.

The Court addressed the test for fitness to stand trial under s. 2 of the Criminal Code and held that fitness requires capacity to make and communicate reality-based defence decisions, not capacity to make decisions in one’s best interests.

Applying that standard, the majority found no basis to disturb findings that the accused was fit despite fluctuating psychotic symptoms, because the record showed sustained reality-based participation and intelligible communication.

The majority also dismissed fresh and new evidence motions concerning post-trial psychiatric evidence and later judicial findings about the Crown expert’s practices, concluding the proposed evidence could not reasonably have affected the verdict.

A dissent would have admitted the fresh evidence, found a miscarriage of justice, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals of Corey and Curtis Murray, who were convicted of second degree murder in the death of Trevor Seraphine.

The main issues on appeal concerned the police failure to preserve certain surveillance video evidence and the Crown’s late disclosure of the loss of this evidence.

The court found that while the loss of evidence breached the appellants’ Charter rights, the trial judge’s remedial jury instructions were adequate and a stay of proceedings was not warranted.

The court also upheld the 20-year parole ineligibility periods, finding them fit in the circumstances.

The appellant, S.J., appealed convictions for forcible confinement, failure to provide necessaries of life, assault causing bodily harm, and assault with a weapon, and a two-year less a day sentence.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's reliance on the daughter's police statement (admitted under the principled exception to hearsay) over her recantation, and the dismissal of a s. 11(b) Charter application.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's credibility findings, finding no error in relying on the police statement and rejecting fresh evidence.

The s. 11(b) application was also properly dismissed due to defence delay.

The sentence was found fit.

The Crown's request to amend the information to conform with the conviction for failure to provide necessaries under s. 215(2)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code was granted.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for manslaughter, appealed the Ontario Review Board's detention order for failing to include a community living term.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable because it did not adequately balance all factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, specifically the appellant's reintegration into society and mental condition, beyond public safety concerns.

The court emphasized the importance of including a community living term to address housing waitlists and facilitate long-term reintegration, even if not immediately exercisable, especially when there is no evidence of public safety risk.

The appeal was allowed, and the disposition order was amended to include a community living term with conditions.

The appellant, N.A., appealed a one-year custodial sentence for historical sexual interference.

The trial judge had erred by concluding that a mandatory minimum sentence applied, which incorrectly precluded a conditional sentence.

Despite this conceded error, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the numerous aggravating factors, including the victim's youth, the severe impact of the crime, the breach of a position of trust, and the appellant's victim-blaming, justified the sentence.

The court concluded that the case did not fall into the rare category where a conditional sentence would be appropriate for this type of crime, even with the legal error.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual interference, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting the complainant's text message as a spontaneous utterance.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge committed palpable and overriding errors and errors of law by improperly concluding that the parties agreed on the immediate timing of the text message, failing to consider the risk of "bootstrapping" (using the statement's content to prove its spontaneity), and not resolving conflicting evidence regarding the timing of the message.

The Court held that the text message was inadmissible hearsay and a prior consistent statement, and its improper admission materially affected the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's credibility on both counts.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant, Daniel Wright, appealed a three-and-a-half-year custodial sentence for sexual exploitation of his stepdaughter, committed between 1988 and 1990.

He argued the sentence was excessive, the judge erred in applying contemporary sentencing principles to a historical offence, and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding a risk assessment and prior willingness to take responsibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error of fact, and that the sentence was fit.

The court also denied the fresh evidence application, concluding it would not have affected the outcome, and declined jurisdiction over the SOIRA order given the sentence was not reduced.

The moving party sought a panel review of two prior orders from single judges of the Court of Appeal.

The first order dismissed a motion for an extension of time to appeal a peace bond decision, finding no merit in the proposed appeal.

The second order dismissed a motion for fresh evidence and witness summonses in an appeal related to stayed private prosecutions.

The panel dismissed both review motions, affirming the original decisions, finding no reversible errors or evidence of bias.

The appellant, convicted of domestic assault and breaches of orders, appealed the non-communication order prohibiting contact with his child, who was present during the assault.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, upholding the non-communication orders during incarceration and probation.

The court found the orders warranted due to the traumatic circumstances and prior family court orders, clarifying that any future contact with the child would be determined by family court or the Children's Aid Society based on the child's best interests.

This case involves cross-appeals from a conviction for sexual assault and the imposed sentence.

The appellant, E.N., appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his s. 276 application to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity with the complainant and in assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's s. 276 ruling or credibility assessment, which was entitled to deference.

The Crown appealed the sentence of two years less a day plus three years of probation, arguing it was demonstrably unfit due to errors in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal also dismissed the sentence appeal, concluding that the trial judge made no reviewable error and the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, having properly applied sentencing principles including denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant, Selvin De Flores Bermudez, appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.

The Crown cross-appealed the three-year concurrent sentence imposed at first instance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the admission of bad character evidence (due to defence counsel's tactical decision) or the trial judge's approach to emotional response evidence.

The court granted leave to appeal sentence, concluding that the trial judge erred in declining to apply the sentencing principles from R. v. Friesen to historical offences.

The Court of Appeal substituted a four-year custodial sentence, emphasizing that the effects of the sentence on the offender and his prospects for rehabilitation, while considered, cannot take precedence over the harm caused to the child victim.

The appellant appealed a conviction for fraud, arguing that the trial judge erred in a factual finding regarding an interest rate.

The Crown conceded the error, but the Court of Appeal found that this mistaken finding played no material role in the trial judge's determination that the fraud charge had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant also abandoned a second ground of appeal.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Daniel Denis Labelle, found not criminally responsible, appealed an Ontario Review Board (ORB) disposition ordering his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The ORB's decision followed a joint submission from Labelle, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, and the Crown, after Labelle committed an unprovoked attack on a vulnerable patient.

Amicus curiae argued the ORB too readily relied on the joint submission and failed to impose the least restrictive means.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB carefully reviewed evidence and that Labelle's risk could not be safely managed at St. Joseph's, necessitating transfer to Waypoint.

This addendum addresses the appropriate forum for sentencing Shawn Cargioli after the Court of Appeal vacated his first-degree murder conviction and substituted it with second-degree murder.

The Court considered arguments from both Mr. Cargioli, who sought sentencing by the Court of Appeal, and the Crown, who requested remittal to the trial court.

Despite the passage of time since the original trial and sentencing, the Court found that the trial court was the more suitable forum, particularly given the Crown's anticipation of a contested sentencing proceeding involving substantial evidence, victim impact statements, and potential "Gardiner" hearings.

The Court ordered the matter remitted to the trial court for sentencing on the second-degree murder conviction.