James C. MacPherson

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and extortion, raising two grounds: (1) whether the application judge erred in dismissing a s. 11(b) Charter application regarding trial delay following a mistrial, and (2) whether the Crown's improper question about child pornography rendered the retrial unfair.

The Court of Appeal held that mistrials do not reset the Jordan clock but must be assessed within the Jordan framework as potential discrete exceptional circumstances.

The mistrial in this case was found to be a discrete exceptional circumstance arising from a shared misunderstanding of law regarding the materiality of dates in the indictment.

The Crown's improper question was adequately remedied by timely and forceful corrective instructions from the trial judge.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and his sentence.

The appellant was charged in September 2019 with sexual assault and administering a noxious substance.

The latter charge was withdrawn.

Following a hung jury in June 2022, the appellant was tried before a judge alone, who found that he sexually assaulted the complainant twice.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) the trial judge erred in finding no breach of section 8 of the Charter regarding an overbroad search of his cell phone; (2) the trial judge erred in finding no breach of section 7 of the Charter based on non-disclosure of the information to obtain the search warrant and minimized the materiality of the hotel video in the conviction; and (3) the trial judge erred in failing to grant sufficient sentencing credit for harsh conditions in pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld both the conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Robert Ashley Williams from his conviction for second degree murder.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not leaving the partial defence of provocation with the jury and by misdirecting the jury on the defence of self-defence.

The court found that the evidence did not support leaving provocation with the jury, as the appellant's actions made the victim's response foreseeable and there was no air of reality to the loss of self-control or suddenness elements.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's self-defence instructions.

The appeal was dismissed.

This appeal concerns the costs consequences of protracted family law litigation between K.K. (the husband) and M.M. (the wife).

The Court of Appeal addresses whether the trial judge erred in awarding full recovery costs to the wife, staying prior costs orders made in favour of the husband, and whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The majority upholds the trial judge’s costs award and the stay of prior costs orders, finding exceptional circumstances due to the husband’s bad faith.

A dissent would reinstate the stayed costs orders, holding that the trial judge exceeded her authority under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Padraig Teggart from a decision designating him as a "high risk accused" (HRA) under the Criminal Code following a finding of not criminally responsible for attempted murder.

The court found that the application judge applied the correct legal standard and properly considered the evidence, including expert opinions and statutory factors, in concluding that there was a substantial likelihood that Mr. Teggart would use violence endangering the life or safety of others.

The decision affirms the exceptional and sparing use of the HRA designation and the heightened risk threshold required.

The appellant, Travis Babbington, appealed his conviction for first degree murder.

He argued that the trial judge erred in admitting his post-arrest statement to police, in instructing the jury on planning and deliberation, in failing to caution the jury about prior consistent statements, and in instructing on eyewitness identification.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge’s rulings or jury instructions.

The appellant, Garett Roy, appealed convictions for three counts of sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge’s credibility assessment or in the handling of alleged inconsistencies in the evidence.

The court held that the trial judge’s reference to trauma was properly contextualized and did not reverse the burden of proof.

The court also found no material misapprehension regarding evidence about rent payments.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Qalid Abderezak, appealed a 12-year sentence for robbery and firearms offences, arguing that the sentence was unreasonably disparate compared to a co-accused, Zakariye Yousuf, who received a 10-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge’s analysis, noting the different roles and culpability of the offenders and the deferential standard of review for sentencing decisions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion by Rajinder Singh Rathee to amend a previous appellate decision regarding the quantum of lump sum spousal support.

The court held that the alleged error was not a clerical or accidental slip within the meaning of Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, but rather a substantive disagreement with the court’s reasoning.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to Noelle Heen-Lune Rathee.

The appellant, Matthew Desouza, appealed his seven-year sentence for human trafficking, assault with a weapon, and failing to comply with a release order.

He argued that the sentencing judge failed to properly apply Gladue principles and that the sentence was unfit.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge gave appropriate consideration to Gladue factors, the seriousness of the offence, and mitigating factors such as remorse and a guilty plea.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Emmanuel Pinard, appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm knowing it to be unauthorized.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered arguments regarding the trial judge’s instructions to the jury, the adequacy of assistance to the self-represented appellant, and the admission of evidence of prior discreditable conduct.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s instructions or approach, and dismissed the conviction appeal, also denying leave to appeal the sentence.

The appellant, Michael Westcott, appealed his sentence on the basis that it significantly exceeded the sentence requested by the Crown.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by failing to provide adequate notice that she was considering a sentence higher than the Crown’s request, as required by R. v. Nahanee.

However, the Court found no error in principle in the judge’s application of the totality principle or her consideration of harsh pretrial custody conditions.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court clarifying the distinction between joint submissions and contested sentencing hearings.

The appellant, David Bynoe, appealed his sentence for firearms offences, assault, and uttering threats.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave to appeal but dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no error in the trial judge’s reasoning or exercise of discretion.

The court addressed arguments regarding the use of lack of acceptance of responsibility as an aggravating factor, the failure to allow the appellant to speak before sentencing, and the reasonableness of the custodial sentence for assault and uttering threats.

The court found that while the appellant should have been allowed to address the court, there was no basis to conclude this would have affected the sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario quashed Hui Shang’s appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court, dated March 19, 2024.

The order, which resolved legal issues in accordance with Minutes of Settlement, was made under the provincial Family Law Act.

The Court held that, pursuant to section 19(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, any appeal from such an order must be brought to the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion by Aliamisse O. Mundulai, who sought to set aside a decision refusing an extension of time to bring a panel review and to stay enforcement of certain paragraphs of a Superior Court order in a family law dispute.

The court found that the relevant rule (r. 63.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure) applied, and that the moving party had not demonstrated irremediable hardship.

The responding party, Ying Huang, was awarded costs of $3,000.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Tanya Rebello’s appeal from the order of Justice Robert Centa, which struck her statement of claim and dismissed her action regarding the erroneous transfer of her vehicle’s registration by ServiceOntario.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s findings that the claims were duplicative, constituted an abuse of process, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court also upheld the costs award against Ms. Rebello and declined to grant leave to appeal the costs order.

The appellant, Gaetano Di Blasi, appealed a trial order declaring a berm he constructed to be in breach of municipal bylaw, authorizing the Regional Municipality of York to enter his property for remediation, enjoining him from interfering with water flow, and requiring him to pay damages in nuisance.

He also appealed a contempt finding and a $10,000 fine for failing to comply with a 2014 order to remove the berm.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s decision, upheld the findings, and dismissed the appeal, awarding $25,000 in costs to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Rosemont’s appeal from an order staying its application against John Faraci as an abuse of process.

The case turned on Rosemont’s failure to immediately disclose a settlement agreement with Cityzien Properties Limited to Mr. Faraci, which fundamentally changed the litigation landscape.

The court held that the obligation to disclose crystallized when the settlement was finalized, and that a delay of nearly two weeks was not “immediate” as required by law.

The court reaffirmed the strictness of the immediate disclosure rule and the automatic remedy of a stay for its breach, regardless of whether the settlement was ultimately enforceable.