Janet Simmons

The United States sought to extradite the respondent for his alleged role in a fraudulent scheme involving ATM skimming devices.

The extradition judge dismissed the application, finding the identification evidence manifestly unreliable and insufficient evidence of possession or knowledge.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the extradition judge's conclusions unreasonable.

The Court held that the identification evidence, when viewed in conjunction with supplemental records, was sufficiently reliable, and that circumstantial evidence supported a reasonable inference of possession and knowledge.

The appeal was allowed and the respondent was committed for surrender.

The appellants appealed a Crown wardship order without access regarding their two children.

They argued the trial judge erred by failing to identify the mother as Indian or native, failing to apply Gladue principles, drawing negative inferences from the mother's flat affect, and failing to consider the children's best interests regarding access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the children did not meet the statutory definition of Indian or native person under the Child and Family Services Act, and that an access order was statutorily precluded because it would impair adoption prospects.

The Court also strongly condemned the systemic delays in the child protection proceedings.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted to the respondent tenant for breach of a commercial lease.

The motion judge had found that the parties made an oral agreement to extend the lease commencement date and that the appellants terminated the lease in bad faith.

The Court of Appeal set aside the summary judgment, finding that the motion judge's factual conclusions regarding the oral agreement were not supported by the evidence, and that he erred by relying on the unpleaded doctrine of part performance.

The Court deferred deciding whether to remit the matter or determine the issues itself, requesting further written submissions from the parties.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and physical assault against the mother of his daughter.

At trial, the complainant testified she could not recall the incident, and the trial judge admitted her preliminary inquiry testimony for the truth of its contents.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in her use of the complainant's demeanour while recanting and by relying on voir dire evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was entitled to consider the complainant's demeanour to determine if her failure to recall stemmed from a wish to reconcile, and that the parties had tacitly agreed the voir dire evidence was admissible at trial.

The appellants, pig farmers, purchased gilts and boars from the respondent.

The animals arrived sick and infected the appellants' herd.

The trial judge found the respondent breached the implied warranty of fitness under the Sale of Goods Act but dismissed the appellants' counterclaim for damages, finding they failed to prove their loss.

The trial judge relied on CAIS records rather than the PigCHAMP records used by all experts.

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in his assessment of damages by relying on records without explanatory evidence and failing to resolve differences in the experts' assumptions.

The Court also found the trial judge erred by failing to determine the number of free replacement animals promised.

A new trial was ordered on the issues of damages and the balance owing.

The appellant applied to re-open his sentence appeal and introduce fresh evidence regarding the immigration consequences of his 26-month sentence for fraud over $5,000.

The fresh evidence demonstrated that a sentence of two years or more would deprive him of the right to appeal a deportation order.

The Court of Appeal granted the application, admitted the fresh evidence, and reduced the sentence to two years less a day, noting the appellant's long-term residence in Canada, family ties, and lack of connections to his homeland.

The appellant appealed an order staying his action pending the payment of outstanding costs orders.

The respondents argued the order was interlocutory and the appeal route was to the Divisional Court with leave.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the order did not determine any substantive matter in the action.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed his convictions for breaking and entering, assault with a weapon, uttering a threat, and failure to comply with probation.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, rendered an unreasonable verdict, and erred in assessing identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly considered the eyewitness identification alongside strong circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's post-offence conduct of hurriedly shaving his head to disguise his identity.

The court concluded the verdicts were supported by the evidence and were not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that acquitted a police officer of assault.

The trial judge had convicted the officer after finding that kicking a non-aggressive suspect twice constituted excessive force.

The appeal judge overturned the conviction, finding the trial judge improperly required aggressive action as a pre-condition for police use of force.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly considered the suspect's lack of aggression as a contextual factor, not a pre-condition, and that the appeal judge failed to consider proportionality.

The conviction was restored and a conditional discharge was imposed.

The Crown appealed a suspended sentence and three years' probation imposed on a 20-year-old offender who pleaded guilty to intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to a dwelling house.

The offender set fire to a carport over a drug debt, which spread to an attached home.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly inferred a causal link between the offender's mental health issues and the offence, and correctly weighed mitigating factors including his youth, guilty plea, and rehabilitation prospects.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge erred in finding police had objectively reasonable grounds for his arrest and in failing to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The police had received a tip and observed the appellant making a series of short stops over two days.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the pattern of conduct, combined with the tip, removed the possibility of innocent coincidence and provided a credibly based probability of drug trafficking.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter in 1971 for the death of his common-law wife and served over three years in prison.

Decades later, fresh medical evidence from multiple pathologists concluded the deceased died of natural causes following a fall, contradicting the trial evidence of blunt force trauma.

The Supreme Court of Canada remanded the case to the Court of Appeal.

On a joint submission with the Crown, the Court admitted the fresh evidence, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal, noting the appellant was wrongly convicted.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following the appeals in Westerhof v. Gee Estate and McCallum v. Baker.

The court ordered that the costs of the appeal in McCallum v. Baker be awarded to the respondent, fixed in the amount of $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and mischief arising from an incident on a public bus.

The Court of Appeal previously dismissed the sexual assault conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal.

In this endorsement regarding the mischief conviction, the Court found that the trial judge erred by convicting the appellant without particularizing the property interfered with or conducting a separate analysis of the elements of the offence.

The mischief conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The respondent, having been successful on the appeal, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant argued that no costs should be awarded because the appeal involved an issue of public importance, or alternatively, that costs should be reduced to reflect divided success on the issues.

The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments, finding the issue was not truly novel and declining to make a distributive costs award.

The respondent was awarded costs of $83,875.85.

The appellant appealed her conviction for sexually assaulting a five-year-old child.

At trial, the judge relied on the unlikelihood that a young child would have knowledge of oral sex without having experienced it with the appellant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by dismissing her application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine the complainant about a prior incident involving another child, which might have explained the complainant's sexual knowledge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's trial counsel had explicitly chosen not to cross-examine on the incident itself, but only on the motive to fabricate, and that the trial judge made no error in her ruling.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder after stabbing two strangers.

At trial, he did not contest the stabbings but claimed he intended to commit suicide.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh psychiatric evidence indicating he suffered from catatonic schizophrenia at the time of the offences.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding it met the Palmer criteria.

Based on the unanimous and uncontradicted opinions of three forensic psychiatrists, the Court found the appellant established the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and verdicts of not criminally responsible were substituted.

The appellant appealed his convictions and six-year sentence for sexual offences committed against parishioners while he was a pastor.

He argued the trial judge erred by denying a change of venue, delivering an unbalanced jury charge regarding vitiating consent, and that the split verdicts were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors and that the verdicts were reconcilable.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly prioritized denunciation and deterrence given the breach of trust.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for sexual assault and mischief arising from an incident where he touched the complainant and raised her skirt on a public bus.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal for sexual assault, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the original sentence of six months' imprisonment was wholly disproportionate for a first offender with 13 days of pre-sentence custody.

The sentence was varied to a suspended sentence with two years' probation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing that his guilty plea was invalid and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and fully informed, as the appellant had consulted with three lawyers and understood the consequences.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice amounting to a miscarriage of justice, as there was no reasonable probability he would have been acquitted at trial given the victim's injuries and witness statements.