Jacob Brooks Millns

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.