Jacob Brooks Millns

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 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.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence of 9 months in custody, plus 12 months’ probation, for indecent assault.

He argued that the trial judge erred by not imposing a conditional sentence, particularly given his health issues and fear of contracting COVID-19 in prison, and by failing to give sufficient weight to rehabilitation and specific deterrence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's decision.

The court affirmed that the principles of denunciation and deterrence were paramount in this case, outweighing mitigating factors, and reiterated that concerns about incarceration conditions due to health or COVID-19 are best addressed by correctional and parole authorities, not by disproportionately reducing a fit sentence.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed the Ontario Review Board's detention order, arguing the Board erred in finding she posed a significant public safety risk and seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion on significant risk was reasonable, supported by clinical assessment, and that a conditional discharge was not appropriate given the appellant's limited insight and inability to be monitored in the community.

The court also found the Board adequately considered Gladue principles.

The appellant was convicted by jury of possession of a loaded restricted firearm after a nightclub incident.

At trial, the trial judge made four rulings curtailing defence counsel's cross-examination of the sole Crown witness linking the appellant to the gun.

The majority of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding three of the four rulings were proper exercises of trial management power and the one erroneous ruling was saved by the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, as there was no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The dissent would have allowed the appeal, finding that trial management powers cannot be used to exclude relevant and material evidence, and that the erroneous ruling — which prevented cross-examination on a prior inconsistent statement going to the heart of the indictment — was not harmless and could not be saved by the proviso.

The appellant appealed his sentence for firearms-related offences, arguing it was overly harsh and that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the onerous conditions of incarceration due to COVID-19 lockdowns.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in principle or misapprehension of facts regarding the sentence's fitness, noting it was well within the available range.

Regarding the incarceration conditions, the court affirmed that the sentencing judge properly factored these as a mitigating circumstance and was not required to provide a mathematical credit.

Both grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The appellant, B.G., appealed convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault.

The main issue was whether Crown counsel invited the jury to rely on impermissible racial or cultural stereotyping during cross-examination of defence witnesses and in closing arguments.

The court found that the Crown's questioning and address created a risk of the jury applying negative stereotypes about Indian culture, particularly regarding women's agency and truthfulness, which was not supported by evidence.

The absence of a specific cautionary instruction from the trial judge resulted in an unfair trial.

The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention in forensic custody without including a provision for community living privileges.

The appellant argued this disposition was not the least onerous or restrictive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's significant risk to public safety, history of elopement and substance abuse, and the expert medical opinion that community living was not feasible at that time.