Jacob Brooks Millns

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to comply with a release order by communicating with the complainant in his pending human trafficking trial.

The communication occurred when third parties approached the complainant with a phone connected to a video call with the appellant, who smirked at her.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to conclude that the smirk was an intentional communication and that the appellant knew the complainant could see him.

The court also held that the trial judge's reasons, though brief, were sufficient for appellate review.

The appellant was convicted of multiple charges of assaulting and threatening his children, and breaching bail orders.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge failed to consider that the youngest complainant's evidence might have been inadvertently tainted by her older sibling.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error, noting that the trial judge was entitled to conclude there was no evidence of influence regarding the specific assaults that formed the basis of the convictions.

The court also declined to interfere with the trial judge's credibility findings, which rejected the appellant's claim that he was framed.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence for assaulting, threatening, and stealing from his live-in girlfriend, arguing the trial judge erred by imposing restrictive probationary terms that deviated from a joint submission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly notified counsel of his intention to depart from the joint submission because the proposed terms did not sufficiently protect the public, given the appellant's history of domestic violence.

The court also rejected the argument that the trial judge improperly assumed facts about a prior fatal car crash involving the appellant's former partner.

The appellant sought leave to appeal her 32-month sentence for criminal negligence causing bodily harm after her one-year-old child nearly died from ingesting methamphetamines and fentanyl in the family home.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge failed to adequately apply the principle of restraint.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the sentencing judge properly prioritized denunciation and deterrence under s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code given the child's vulnerability and the inherently dangerous environment.

The sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of sexual interference and making and distributing child sexual abuse and exploitation material involving a 14-year-old complainant.

He appealed his convictions and his four-and-a-half-year sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred in denying a stay of proceedings for egregious Crown misconduct, finding no s. 10(b) Charter breach, instructing the jury on prior inconsistent statements, and not leaving the private use exemption defence to the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the global sentence was fit and the 18-month reduction for the s. 7 Charter breach was an appropriate remedy.

The appellant appealed the restitution and fine in lieu of forfeiture orders imposed following his conviction for five counts of fraud over $5,000.

He argued the orders were unfair and based on a misinterpretation of the fraud amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant did not contest the restitution order at sentencing and the preconditions for the fine in lieu of forfeiture were met.

The three-year sentence in default of payment was the statutory minimum.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault, brought a motion under s. 683 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine the complainant on proposed fresh evidence.

The fresh evidence consisted of recordings in which the complainant allegedly recanted her trial testimony, and a subsequent police statement in which she resiled from that recantation.

The Crown opposed the motion, arguing it was an abuse of process because the recordings were obtained in breach of a non-communication order.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that cross-examination could assist the appeal panel in assessing the credibility of the recantation.

The cross-examination was ordered to proceed remotely, subject to strict limits on its scope.

The appellant sought to challenge the dismissal of his appeal from convictions under the Highway Traffic Act after failing to pursue the appeal for many years.

He argued that the delay resulted from the court’s failure to produce a transcript he claimed to have ordered when filing his notice of appeal.

The appellate court accepted for purposes of the appeal that the transcript may have been ordered but held that the appellant nevertheless bore the responsibility to pursue the appeal with due diligence.

A delay of approximately 17 years without steps to follow up on the transcript did not meet the due diligence requirement.

The court found no error in the appeal judge’s decision dismissing the appeal.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence for firearm and drug-related offences, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the impact of incarceration on his relationship with his children and resulting family separation.

The appellant requested a modest three‑month reduction from the imposed four‑year sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge was aware of the appellant’s parental status and the inevitable interruption to family relationships caused by incarceration.

The court found no error in principle and concluded that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault, arguing that his Charter rights under ss. 10(a) and (b) were violated, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the trial judge misapplied the W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was adequately informed of the reasons for his arrest and the jeopardy he faced before speaking to duty counsel.

The court also rejected the ineffective assistance claim due to a lack of evidentiary foundation and found no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, which were supported by corroborating evidence.

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, a 58-year-old family friend, was convicted of sexually assaulting the 17-year-old daughter of his close friend and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, applying the W.(D.) principles, and finding a lack of consent.

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 six-year term was not demonstrably unfit given the significant breach of trust, the vulnerability of the adolescent victim, and the severe impact of the offences.

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.