James Carlisle

The Ontario Review Board held a disposition hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible (NCR) on charges of dangerous operation of a conveyance and failing to stop for police.

The accused has a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and a history of medication noncompliance and aggression.

Based on the uncontested evidence of the treating psychiatrist and the joint submission of the parties, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a detention disposition to ensure the accused receives necessary psychiatric and medical care in a secure environment.

The respondent, Hassan Jarrar, was found guilty of multiple sexual and child pornography offences.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence.

The court found a pattern of repetitive violent and sexual behaviour targeting young vulnerable females, demonstrating a failure to restrain behaviour and a likelihood of causing death, injury, or severe psychological damage.

Despite the respondent's lack of cooperation with assessments and treatment, the court concluded there was no reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence or a long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public.

Consequently, the respondent was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms for the serious personal injury offences, along with other prohibitions and orders.

The appellant appealed his sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The parties agreed that the trial judge was inadvertently misled regarding the immigration consequences of the sentence.

A sentence of exactly 6 months would preclude an appeal of a removal order, whereas a sentence under 6 months would permit such an appeal.

On consent, the Court of Appeal varied the effective sentence from 6 months to 5 months 29 days concurrent on all counts, with the probation order remaining unchanged.

The variation included credit for 98 days of pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed his conviction on a single ground: that the trial judge erred in dismissing his motion to stay proceedings for breach of s. 11(b) of the Charter (right to trial within reasonable time).

The appellant had been arrested on five counts of criminal harassment in November 2008 and subsequently re-arrested six times over three years on similar charges.

After a lengthy and complex procedural history spanning over four years, the appellant pleaded guilty to five counts and was sentenced to probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on two bases: first, that the appellant's guilty plea barred him from challenging the pre-trial s. 11(b) ruling under the Fegan doctrine; and second, on the merits, that even under the Jordan framework (which post-dated the trial judge's decision), the delay did not constitute a breach of s. 11(b) when defence delay and transitional exceptional circumstances were properly accounted for.

Two co-accused appealed their sentences imposed following guilty pleas to breaking and entering and convictions on firearm and drug offences.

The appellants argued the sentencing judge erred in characterizing the offence as a home invasion and imposed sentences that were too high and violated the totality principle.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentences, finding the sentencing judge was entitled to find the appellants were reckless as to whether anyone was home, and that the sentences were fit given the aggravating factors including the use of a firearm, criminal records, breach of court orders, premeditation, and proximity to schools.

The court allowed Mr. Fourtounes' appeal only to award additional pre-trial custody credit of 227 days.

The appellant pleaded guilty to nine counts of fraud and was sentenced to an 18-month conditional sentence.

He later discovered this was an illegal sentence, as the maximum for a summary conviction under s. 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code is six months, and it carried unanticipated immigration consequences.

On consent, the court extended the time to appeal and varied the sentence to nine consecutive two-month conditional sentences.

The court also corrected the trial judge's concurrent victim fine surcharges, imposing a $100 surcharge on each count but extending the time to pay until 2050 due to the appellant's financial circumstances.

The Crown applied to have the respondent declared a Dangerous Offender following his convictions for criminal harassment, mischief, and breach of a Long-Term Supervision Order.

The respondent had a lengthy history of stalking and harassing former intimate partners.

The court found that the criminal harassment convictions constituted serious personal injury offences, as they caused severe psychological damage to the victim.

The court declared the respondent a Dangerous Offender, imposing a determinate global sentence of 6 years (reduced to 2.5 years after pre-trial custody credit) and a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order.

The appellant appealed her conviction for assault causing bodily harm, which was entered following a guilty plea.

The Court of Appeal found the plea was invalid and not unequivocal due to shifting facts presented by the Crown, the appellant's statements suggesting a lack of mens rea, and indications she pleaded guilty primarily to be released from jail where she was allegedly denied HIV medication.

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

The offenders were found guilty of conspiracy to import 112 kg of cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The cocaine was hidden in wooden pallets in a sea container shipped from Guyana.

The court found both offenders were principal participants in a sophisticated importation scheme.

Buttazzoni, who had a prior drug conviction in the US and made threats of violence, was sentenced to 17 years.

Ramlall, a first-time offender who received the pallets at his home, was sentenced to 15 years.

Both received credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest.

During a trial for drug importation, the Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused to police following his arrest.

The accused made an initial statement in a police cruiser and a subsequent video-recorded statement at the police station.

The court found the cruiser statement involuntary due to an incomplete record and inducements offered by the officer.

Applying the derived confessions rule, the court also excluded the subsequent video statement, finding it was causally, temporally, and contextually connected to the first tainted statement.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence, arguing the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the availability of an Aboriginal-specific treatment program.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was reasonable for the sentencing judge to conclude there was no reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk the appellant posed in the community, especially given his lengthy criminal record, history of violent offences while on drugs, and the lack of supervision that would follow a long-term offender order.

The accused were tried before a judge alone on charges arising from a large-scale cocaine importation scheme involving approximately 112 kilograms of cocaine shipped from Guyana to Canada in a sea container.

The Crown alleged conspiracy to import cocaine, importing cocaine, and possession for the purpose of trafficking, relying on surveillance, intercepted communications, controlled delivery evidence, and admissions.

The court found that two of the accused knowingly participated in a conspiracy to import cocaine and later exercised possession of the drugs for trafficking purposes, based largely on circumstantial evidence and intercepted communications demonstrating knowledge, control, and shared financial interest in the shipment.

However, the court found insufficient evidence that any accused actually committed the offence of importing under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act because their involvement occurred after the drugs entered Canada.

Two accused were acquitted entirely due to reasonable doubt regarding knowledge and participation.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained from a judicially authorized search of his iPhone following his arrest for break and enter, firearm, and drug trafficking offences.

He argued the warrant lacked sufficient evidentiary basis and authorized an overly broad search contrary to s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Garofoli standard of review, the court examined whether the issuing justice could have granted the authorization based on the information to obtain.

The court held that the ITO provided reasonable grounds to believe the phone would contain evidence related to planning and execution of the offence.

The warrant was appropriately limited to specified categories of data and the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was not unreasonable given the appellant's admitted non-compliance with previous dispositions, lack of insight into his condition and medical needs, and recent events.

A physician brought a motion under s. 19(2) of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 seeking authorization to administer antipsychotic and related medications to a psychiatric patient pending the disposition of an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding the patient incapable of consenting to treatment.

The patient opposed treatment and had appealed the Board’s incapacity determination.

The court considered whether the statutory criteria for interim treatment were satisfied, including whether the treatment would substantially improve the patient’s condition, whether deterioration would occur without treatment, whether the benefits outweighed the risks, and whether the proposed plan was the least restrictive alternative.

Based on medical evidence of severe deterioration, violent incidents, and the likelihood of improvement with medication, the court found all criteria met.

The physician was authorized to administer the proposed medications pending the final determination of the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming an involuntary psychiatric admission and finding the appellant incapable of consenting to certain forms of treatment under the Health Care Consent Act.

By the time the appeal was heard, the appellant had been discharged from the treating facility and was under the care of a different physician, with subsequent admissions and new incapacity findings having occurred.

The court concluded there was no longer a live controversy between the parties because the treatment relationship underlying the Board decision had ended.

Applying the mootness principles articulated in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), the court declined to exercise its residual discretion to hear the matter.

The appeal was dismissed as moot, leaving the Board’s earlier decision as the final disposition of the application.

The accused was charged with possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace after police found a loaded crossbow in a locked roof carrier on his car near the G20 Summit.

Following a finding of unfitness and subsequent treatment, the trial proceeded.

The court excluded the accused's statements due to a Charter s. 10(b) breach.

The Crown conceded there was no evidence of what the accused intended to do with the crossbow.

The court held that mere negligence or careless storage was insufficient to establish the requisite subjective mens rea or recklessness for the offence.

The charge was dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment with 18 years of parole ineligibility.

He subsequently sought to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial judge dismissed.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence from his co-accused, appealed the dismissal of his motion to withdraw the plea, and appealed his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to admit fresh evidence, finding it lacked credibility as the co-accused refused to answer critical questions.

The Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the guilty plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and informed.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in extending the period of parole ineligibility based on the appellant's high culpability and poor pre-sentence report.

The appellant, a forensic patient diagnosed with schizophrenia, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law by conflating the two-part capacity test and that its decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly applied the two-part test from the Health Care Consent Act and reasonably concluded on the evidence that the appellant's delusions prevented him from understanding treatment information and appreciating the consequences of his decision.

The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter after loading a shotgun that his girlfriend subsequently used to shoot and kill the victim.

The sentencing judge imposed an effective sentence of 12.5 years, including pre-trial custody credit.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentence was unfit given his minimal involvement in the actual killing.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the sentence was outside the appropriate range, noting the lack of evidence of actual participation in the killing and the absence of a serious related criminal record.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to nine years less credit for pre-trial custody.