Janani Shanmuganathan

This decision concerns a Crown appeal of a conditional sentence imposed for sexual assault.

The Crown argued that a traditional jail sentence was required, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation, and alleged errors in the sentencing judge’s application of section 718.04 of the Criminal Code and in considering the offender’s intellectual disability as a mitigating factor.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the sentencing judge had carefully considered all relevant principles, including the vulnerability of Indigenous women and the impact on the complainant, and that exceptional circumstances justified the conditional sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, convicted of domestic assault and breaches of orders, appealed the non-communication order prohibiting contact with his child, who was present during the assault.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, upholding the non-communication orders during incarceration and probation.

The court found the orders warranted due to the traumatic circumstances and prior family court orders, clarifying that any future contact with the child would be determined by family court or the Children's Aid Society based on the child's best interests.

The appellant was convicted of multiple sexual offences and possessing child pornography, receiving a 10-year prison sentence.

He appealed his conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial judge failed to adequately address inconsistencies in a complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant did not meet the factual threshold for ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial judge properly characterized the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence as "peripheral," distinguishing the case from precedents where inconsistencies were deemed "profound."

The appellant, a young person, appealed convictions for sexual assault and uttering death threats, arguing the trial judge's reasons were insufficient due to a failure to address material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and a potential motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge's reasons did not permit meaningful appellate review as they failed to grapple with critical credibility issues.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, Aayush Choudhary, appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting a 16-year-old complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred by excluding evidence of other sexual activity under s. 276 of the Criminal Code, failing to resolve material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, and misapprehending material evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision that the "kitchen incident" sexual activity was distinct from the charged offence and properly screened under s. 276.

The court found no material inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and concluded that any misapprehensions of evidence by the trial judge were inconsequential to the conviction, as the complainant had verbally communicated non-consent.

The appellant, Vykunthan Kanthavel, appealed his convictions for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, possession of a weapon, and aggravated assault, and his three-year imprisonment sentence.

The appeal raised three grounds: improper reliance on prior statements in credibility assessment, impermissible frame-by-frame analysis of evidence, and failure to apply the principle of restraint in sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility findings, no impermissible analysis of video evidence given the judge's self-caution, and no error in sentencing as the principle of restraint was considered.

Leave to admit fresh evidence regarding the appellant's fatherly responsibilities was denied as it would not have affected the outcome.

The appellant, Mohsin Mirza, appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The trial judge had found the sexual encounter non-consensual.

The appeal raised three issues: errors in assessing the complainant's credibility and reliability, improper reliance on stereotypes in treating the appellant's evidence, and applying an uneven standard of scrutiny.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the arguments essentially amounted to a disagreement with the trial judge's factual findings and that no material misapprehension of evidence or reversible error in credibility assessment was demonstrated.

The appellant appealed his conviction for various drug and firearm offences and his nine-year global sentence.

The conviction appeal challenged the validity of a search warrant under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds, particularly regarding the inclusion of facts from prior withdrawn or stayed charges.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the ITO, based on the totality of evidence and corroborative facts, justified the warrant.

The sentence appeal argued the nine-year global sentence was excessive, but the Court found the trial judge's sentencing discretion was reasonable.

Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, Dylan Hird, appealed his conviction for various offences related to the trafficking and sexual assault of a 15-year-old complainant.

The appeal focused on two grounds: the trial judge's charge to the jury regarding identification evidence and the handling of the police's failure to conduct a photo line-up.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's instructions on identification, which adequately cautioned the jury on eyewitness testimony frailties and the need to prove the appellant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's management of the photo line-up issue, concluding that the approach taken was fair to both the Crown and the defence.

The appellant, Jeffrey Dodman, sought leave to appeal his 12-month custodial sentence for robbery and use of an imitation firearm.

The appeal focused on the calculation of "Downes credits" for pre-trial bail conditions, the appropriateness of a conditional sentence, the impact of post-sentencing events (including COVID-19 risks), and the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence for imitation firearm use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge's calculation of Downes credits was a reasonable exercise of discretion, a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the seriousness of the crime, and post-sentencing events did not warrant interference.

The court also declined to rule on the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum or delay the decision pending legislative changes, as the imposed sentence was deemed fit regardless.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of aggravated assault and firearms offences, arguing the trial judge misapprehended surveillance video evidence, failed to assess evidence holistically, and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of the circumstantial evidence, and that the reasons were sufficient.

The court reiterated that Crown appeals from acquittals are limited to questions of law alone and cannot challenge the reasonableness of the verdict.

Cameron Walker was acquitted of impaired driving after the trial judge excluded breath samples due to a Charter s. 8 violation concerning video recording of his toilet use in a police cell without proper notice.

The Crown appealed, arguing errors in finding a s. 8 violation and in excluding evidence under s. 24(2).

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's finding of a serious s. 8 breach due to inadequate notice and the humiliating nature of the recording, and affirmed the exclusion of evidence, dismissing the Crown's appeal.

Four accused were convicted of drug trafficking offences committed for the benefit of a criminal organization (the Five Point Generals), conspiracy to traffic controlled substances, and firearms offences following a three-month jury trial based largely on intercepted communications.

The appellants challenged their convictions on five grounds: jury selection procedures, cross-examination limitations of the Crown's expert witness, exclusion of defence expert evidence, admission of extrinsic misconduct evidence, and alleged imbalance in the jury charge.

They also appealed their sentences, primarily challenging the credit awarded for pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all conviction appeals and three of four sentence appeals, allowing only Shane Evans' sentence appeal based on inadequate credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant, B.J.T., was convicted of two counts of sexual interference and two counts of sexual assault for shaving his daughter's pubic hair at her request in 2011 (when she was 13) and again in 2013 (when she was 15).

The trial judge struck down the mandatory minimum sentences as unconstitutional and imposed minimal sentences.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the 2011 sexual interference conviction and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge failed to adequately address the specific intent requirement.

The Court dismissed appeals on the 2013 convictions and upheld the sentencing decisions, including the finding that the mandatory minimum sentences violated the Charter.

The appellant, B.J.T., was convicted of two counts of sexual interference and two counts of sexual assault for shaving his daughter's pubic hair at her request in 2011 (when she was 13) and again in 2013 (when she was 15).

The trial judge struck down the mandatory minimum sentences as unconstitutional and imposed minimal sentences.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the 2011 sexual interference conviction and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge failed to adequately address the specific intent requirement.

The Court dismissed appeals on the 2013 convictions and upheld the sentencing decisions, including the finding that the mandatory minimum sentences violated the Charter.

The appellants were convicted of terrorism-related offences including conspiracy to commit murder for the benefit of a terrorist group and participating in terrorist activity.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the jury selection procedure used at trial.

The trial judge erroneously held that he lacked common law discretion to exclude unsworn jurors while using rotating triers to determine challenges for cause, and instead ordered the use of static triers with all jurors excluded.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's error deprived the appellants of their statutory right to rotating triers with unsworn jurors excluded, resulting in an improperly constituted jury.

The curative proviso could not be applied to remedy this fundamental procedural error.

The accused, L.E., facing charges of historic sexual assault, applied under s. 278.93 of the Criminal Code for a hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence concerning alleged prior sexual activity of one of the complainants, L.S., with other children.

The accused argued this evidence was relevant to the reliability of the complainant's memories, not to support the "twin myths." The Crown conceded the evidence did not trigger the "twin myths" but argued it was inadmissible under the "collateral fact rule." The court granted the s. 278.93 application, finding that the formal requirements were met and the evidence was capable of being admissible under s. 276(2), and ordered a s. 278.94 hearing to address relevance, probative value, and the collateral fact rule.

The Crown applied to have the offender, S.S., declared a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code, seeking an indeterminate sentence, following his conviction for sexual interference.

The offender resisted, arguing he should be declared a long-term offender under s. 753.1, with a determinate sentence and a long-term supervision order.

The court declined to find the offender a dangerous offender, concluding that the Crown failed to prove a "pattern of repetitive behaviour" or "persistent aggressive behaviour" and that the conduct was "intractable" beyond a reasonable doubt.

Instead, the court found the offender to be a long-term offender, imposing a 10-year term of imprisonment and a 10-year long-term supervision order, finding a reasonable possibility of eventual risk control in the community.

The appellant appealed his sentence imposed by the trial judge following conviction on counts of fraud and money laundering.

The trial judge ordered the appellant to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the amount of $1,150,000 within five years of release from custody.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in fixing the payment period because he failed to consider the appellant's ability to pay.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did consider ability to pay as a relevant factor, noting that both counsel made submissions on the period for payment and the trial judge's order fell within the range suggested by counsel.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a sentence of 12 years imposed following conviction on 25 of 34 counts of sexual offences against four complainants.

The trial judge had determined a fit sentence of 13 years and reduced it by one year to account for the appellant's advanced age and health challenges.

The appellant argued that age should be more substantially factored into the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, and that a shorter sentence could achieve these objectives for an elderly offender.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and dismissed the appeal, holding that the sentence fell comfortably within the appropriate range and that the weight assigned to age did not reflect error.