Jason Gorda

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed following a guilty plea to sexual interference involving a child under 16.

The trial judge had imposed the statutory minimum sentence of 14 days' imprisonment and probation.

The appeal court found multiple errors in principle, including misapprehension of a psychiatric report, failure to properly consider aggravating factors, and improper characterization of the offence as being at the low end of seriousness.

Although the appellate court concluded that the sentence was manifestly unfit and that a range of six to twelve months would ordinarily be appropriate, it declined to intervene due to significant delays and the respondent’s completion of the custodial portion of the sentence and substantial compliance with probation.

The Crown appeal was therefore dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for dangerous driving following a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge erred in concluding that a defence witness had adopted a prior out‑of‑court statement made to police and treating that statement as substantive evidence.

The court reviewed the legal principles governing adoption of prior statements, including the requirement that the witness both acknowledge making the statement and affirm its truth based on present memory.

The appellate court found that although the witness admitted making the statement, he did not clearly adopt its contents as true.

Because the trial judge relied heavily on the supposed adoption in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction could not stand.