Jacob Brooks Millns

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.

The appellant, K.B., appealed convictions for historical sexual offences against the complainant, EO.

K.B. argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence and provided insufficient reasons by failing to adequately address contradictions between EO's testimony and that of a defence witness, LB, particularly concerning opportunities for the offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered all evidence, including contradictions, and provided sufficient reasons for her decision, noting the trial judge's finding that LB's testimony was tailored to assist her father.

The appellant, Julien Jutras, appealed his convictions for sexual assault and voyeurism, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient.

He contended that the trial judge failed to adequately address inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and an alleged motive for her to fabricate evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that while it would have been preferable for the trial judge to explicitly address these points, the reasons, when read holistically and in context, were not insufficient.

The court noted that the trial judge clearly accepted the complainant's evidence, which was supported by the graphic photos, and that a failure to explain the rejection of a submission does not render reasons deficient if the acceptance of contrary evidence is clear.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, Shawn Cargioli, Kendell Kamal, and Famien Morrisson, appealed their murder convictions stemming from the stabbing death of Shadi Taleb during a planned robbery.

Cargioli was convicted of first-degree murder, while Kamal and Morrisson were convicted of second-degree murder.

The appeals raised various grounds, including the admissibility of expert evidence, trial judge's rulings on witness testimony, admissibility of police statements, jury instructions on after-the-fact conduct, misapprehension of evidence, the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule, and jury instructions on liability for manslaughter, murder, and first-degree murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of Morrisson and Kamal, affirming their convictions and sentences.

For Cargioli, the court found a reversible error in the first-degree murder instruction regarding the contemporaneity of mens rea and actus reus for active participation.

Given the Crown's concession, the court substituted a conviction for second-degree murder for Cargioli and remitted the matter for sentencing.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, assault, and criminal harassment, alleging errors by the trial judge in assessing the complainant's credibility, placing undue weight on demeanour, accepting specific evidence, assessing photographic evidence, and unevenly scrutinizing evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly considered all inconsistencies, did not overemphasize demeanour, and was entitled to her conclusions on the evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, and the sentence appeal was abandoned.

The applicant, convicted of sexual assault with a weapon, brought a motion for state-funded counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code after being denied Legal Aid.

The applicant argued the trial judge erred by relying on myths and stereotypes and misapplying the W.(D.) principles in assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the proposed grounds of appeal lacked sufficient merit and the applicant was capable of advancing the arguments without appointed counsel.

The appellant, Aamir Syed, appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, the verdict was illogical, and the judge misapprehended evidence, specifically regarding an expert's toxicology report, the complainant's alcohol consumption, and a potential motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons were adequate, his credibility findings were entitled to deference, and there was no misapprehension of evidence.

The court affirmed that it was open to the trial judge to accept or reject parts of a witness's testimony and to find no evidentiary basis for a motive to fabricate.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, raising arguments of insufficient reasons from the trial judge, uneven scrutiny of Crown and defence evidence, and erroneous findings regarding evidence that confirmed the complainant's account.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficient, the scrutiny of evidence balanced, and the corroborating evidence (specifically the complainant's demeanour) properly considered, despite some disagreement with the trial judge's assessment of one piece of corroborating evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, theft under $5,000, and unlawful confinement, stemming from an altercation with a complainant in a hotel room.

The trial judge had acquitted on other charges (sexual assault, robbery, choking, threatening death) where proof depended entirely on the complainant's uncorroborated evidence.

The appellant argued misapprehension of evidence, uneven scrutiny of evidence, and error in the self-defence analysis.

The Court of Appeal found no material misapprehension, noting the trial judge's reasoned rejection of the appellant's evidence.

It also found no uneven scrutiny, as the trial judge carefully examined both sides and properly applied rules of evidence.

The court upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant was the aggressor, which negated the self-defence claim.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is a sentence appeal where the appellant sought a reduction in his sentence.

While the trial judge's original sentence was deemed fit at the time it was imposed, the Court of Appeal considered compelling fresh evidence of the appellant's post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts, including successful completion of numerous programs and strong family connections.

In light of these highly unusual circumstances and the strong fresh evidence, the court reduced the appellant's sentence to 16 months.