Jean Richer

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on two counts of assaulting peace officers.

The trial judge had allowed the defence to reopen its case twice and found that the respondent was a "licensee" with a right to occupy his mother's home, meaning the police were not acting in the execution of their duties when attempting to evict him.

The trial judge also found that the force used by the respondent in self-defence was not excessive.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's decision on the reopening of the case, the respondent's status as a licensee, and the reasonableness of his self-defence, thus dismissing the appeal.

The respondent's request for compensation for delays was also dismissed.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for a 2007 sexual assault and appealed his annual review by the Ontario Review Board, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

In parallel proceedings, the Superior Court overturned the NCR verdict and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the current appeal as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal as the bias issue was highly fact-specific.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition continuing his detention in a hospital.

The appellant argued he did not suffer from a mental illness and that the Board's reasons were insufficient to establish he posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of mental illness but agreed the Board's reasons were insufficient, particularly regarding its reliance on uncorroborated hearsay evidence and its failure to explain why the threat was deemed 'significant' despite contrary psychiatric evidence.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The appellant, a young offender, appealed a 90-day sentence for assault causing bodily harm.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to credit 101 days of pre-trial custody served for separate robbery charges that were later withdrawn.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge erred in law by not considering the pre-trial custody.

The 90-day sentence was set aside, as the pre-trial custody credit would have fully absorbed it.