James Douglas Foord

The appellant appealed a lifetime driving prohibition imposed at sentencing.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the record did not permit a finding of waiver or an inference of notice under s. 727 of the Criminal Code.

In the absence of proof of notice, the maximum prohibition available was that provided for in s. 259(1)(a).

The lifetime prohibition was varied to three years and nine months.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for multiple offences, including assault, sexual assault, and uttering threats, against three former partners.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, quashing the convictions relating to one complainant because the trial judge improperly relied on prior consistent statements that were not in evidence to bolster her credibility.

The convictions relating to the other two complainants were upheld.

The Court granted leave to appeal the sentences on the remaining counts, varying them to run consecutively rather than concurrently, resulting in a total sentence of 32 months.

The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted choking and threatening, as well as his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment plus pre-trial custody and 3 years' probation.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and applied uneven scrutiny to the testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons satisfactory and her credibility assessments sound.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was within the proper range for a serious domestic violence offence and adequately reflected principles of deterrence and denunciation.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in drawing inferences from video evidence regarding causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's blow significantly contributed to the victim's rupture was amply supported by the record.

The sentence appeal was abandoned.

The Crown appealed the summary conviction appeal judge's decision to acquit the respondent.

The respondent had been convicted at trial for an offence involving a poster depicting explicit sexual activity with a complainant who was under 18 years old.

The Court of Appeal found that the summary conviction appeal judge erred by being improperly influenced by the fact that the complainant was nearly 18.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and restored the trial judge's conviction, emphasizing Parliament's intention to prevent the sexual exploitation of young persons.

The appellants appealed their convictions for a home invasion motivated by a mistaken belief about a marijuana grow operation.

The Crown's case relied on K.G.B. statements from two accomplices who recanted at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the verdicts reasonable and upholding the trial judge's decision to take judicial notice of the general location and movement of cell phones based on cell tower signals without expert evidence.

However, the sentence appeal for one appellant was allowed, reducing his sentence from 10 years to 8 years due to his younger age, lesser criminal record, and the parity principle.

The Crown appealed a decision staying the charge against the respondent due to unreasonable delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while it did not entirely agree with the trial judge's allocation of time, the overall finding of unreasonable delay was sustainable.

The respondent pled guilty to conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and was sentenced to two years less a day, plus probation, with 12 months' credit for pre-trial custody.

The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing the respondent played a more significant role than a mere courier.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the respondent was involved in the distribution of multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine and negotiating prices.

The sentence was varied to four years, with credit for pre-trial custody and time served on parole.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed in 2005.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to two years less five days, noting that had the trial judge and counsel been aware of the immigration consequences, the joint submission would have taken them into account.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences against his five-year-old daughter.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, failed to appreciate inconsistencies in the child's testimony, and applied a stricter standard of scrutiny to his evidence, thereby reversing the onus of proof.

The Court of Appeal found no material misapprehension of evidence and held that the trial judge properly assessed credibility based on principles applicable to child witnesses.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the Registrant's registration as a gaming supplier (lottery retailer).

The Registrant had failed to disclose numerous convictions under the Criminal Code and the Highway Traffic Act on his applications for registration.

The Board found that the Registrant's lengthy record of convictions and his incomplete disclosure demonstrated a lack of honesty and integrity.

The Board concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the Registrant would not act in accordance with the law or in the public interest, and ordered the immediate revocation of his registration.

The appellant appealed a six-month custodial sentence for her role as a gardener in a marijuana grow operation.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh medical evidence indicating that the appellant's mental health had significantly deteriorated since sentencing and that further incarceration would cause extreme hardship.

The court allowed the appeal, finding that the principles of sentencing could be met by a conditional sentence.

The custodial sentence was set aside and replaced with an 18-month conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that a police officer's entry into his home violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the officer approached the home lawfully to investigate an accident and stepped into the foyer on the implied invitation of the appellant's wife.

The implied invitation doctrine applied, distinguishing the case from R. v. Evans.

The appellant was convicted of breaching a term of his recognizance requiring him to remain 50 metres from an embassy.

He testified he believed the distance was 15 metres and had not read the document.

The trial judge and summary conviction appeal court judge convicted him on the basis of wilful blindness for failing to read the terms.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal, holding that both lower courts erred in law.

Wilful blindness requires a subjective, deliberate decision to remain ignorant of a suspected state of affairs, not merely a negligent failure to make reasonable inquiries.

The appellant appealed his conviction related to a marijuana grow operation.

He argued that his presence in the house for six hours did not prove knowledge or control of the drugs, suggesting alternative inferences such as watching television or sleeping.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge reasonably concluded the appellant's guilt was the only reasonable inference given his sole possession of the house, possession of a key, and the substantial nature of the operation.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting his claim of self-defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was not unreasonable for the trial judge to conclude that the appellant, who produced and used a weapon immediately upon being attacked, lacked reasonable grounds to believe he could not otherwise preserve himself.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to provide a breath sample.

He was stopped for a burnt-out headlight, smelled of alcohol, and provided thirteen unsuitable breath samples into a screening device by giving short, quick puffs despite instructions.

The trial judge found he intentionally refused to provide a proper sample.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate and properly considered the evidence.

The appellant appealed her sentence of three months' jail and three years' probation for assault, break and enter, and other offences.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the appellant's mental health progress and the likelihood of drug use while on a conditional sentence.

Noting the uncontradicted evidence from her psychiatrist that a custodial sentence would be particularly difficult, and her continued progress while on bail, the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the custodial sentence to time served.

The young person appealed a disposition imposed by the Youth Court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge gave adequate reasons for his credibility findings, properly applied the principles in W.D., and found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder, arguing the trial judge misdirected the jury on the defence of intoxication and erred in admitting similar fact evidence of a prior sexual assault.

The Crown alleged the appellant murdered the victim during a sexual assault or attempted sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the jury instructions regarding intoxication, noting the charge as a whole correctly placed the burden of proof on the Crown.

The Court also upheld the admission of the similar fact evidence, concluding its probative value in establishing the occurrence of a sexual assault outweighed its prejudicial effect.

The appeal was dismissed.