Jeff A. Marshman

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and failing to comply with probation.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and an intellectual disability, had been living in the community but experienced several hospital readmissions due to physical health issues and medication non-compliance.

The Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the detention order with the same terms and conditions.

The appellant sought to reduce a global nine-year sentence for armed robbery-related offences by relying on fresh evidence of pre-sentence custody lockdowns and triple bunking.

The court admitted the fresh evidence but held that harsh-custody mitigation required evidence of actual impact, which was not provided.

Applying the governing approach to custody conditions as a mitigating factor within overall fitness analysis, the panel found no error in principle and no demonstrable unfitness.

Given the appellant’s extensive robbery record, parole status at the time of the offences, and the already low-end fit sentence for armed robbery, a reduction would have made the sentence unfit.

The appellant challenged convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting a child complainant’s hearsay disclosures and related audio recordings.

The court held the trial judge properly applied the principled hearsay framework on necessity and threshold reliability, including evidence of potential trauma if the complainant testified and corroborative forensic evidence.

The court rejected arguments alleging judicial bias and improper treatment of the appellant’s exculpatory account, finding no evidentiary foundation for intervention.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, who has a history of schizophrenia exacerbated by cannabis use, had been detained at CAMH.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

However, noting his clinical stability on a new medication regimen and his successful use of hospital passes, the Board ordered the continuation of his detention disposition with expanded privileges, including access to the Greater Toronto Area and the ability to live in approved supportive housing in the community.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault due to a cannabis-induced psychotic disorder.

The accused's treating psychiatrist testified that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, lacking full insight into the risks of resuming cannabis use without antipsychotic medication.

The Board accepted this evidence, finding that the accused requires supervision and supported accommodation.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with expanded community privileges to include the Greater Toronto Area to assist with discharge planning.

The appellant challenged an Ontario Review Board disposition under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

Following a material change in living circumstances and concession that practical utility of the appeal had dissipated pending the next annual review, the court dismissed the appeal.

On a criminal appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the appellant challenged an order staying proceedings.

The Supreme Court heard the appeal and delivered oral judgment the same day.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the stay order, and remitted the matter for trial.

Reasons were stated to follow.

The appellants, David Hui and Musab Saboon, appealed their convictions for kidnapping and first-degree murder of Lee Chiodo, as well as Hui's sentence for kidnapping.

Both were convicted after a trial by judge alone and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's credibility and reliability analysis of Marshall Hardy-Fox, a Vetrovec witness whose evidence was key to the convictions.

The appellants also argued the trial judge failed to apply the proper legal test for assessing credibility and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of Hardy-Fox's evidence, proper application of the credibility test, and adequate reasons.

The court also dismissed Hui's sentence appeal based on the parity principle.

The appellant appealed a 9-year global sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that he did not receive adequate credit for presentence custody given the hardship endured.

Although the trial judge accepted the appellant's account of hardship and granted 3:1 credit, duty counsel submitted that the trial judge may have misapprehended the appellant's primary submission for a time-served sentence.

The appellate court found no error warranting interference, noting that the trial judge provided significant credit for hardship and properly rejected the time-served submission based on the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's degree of responsibility.

The appellant appealed a custodial sentence of two years less a day imposed for aggravated assault.

The assault arose from a parking lot altercation where the appellant stabbed the victim with a screwdriver, causing life-threatening injuries to the chest.

The appellant sought to vary the sentence to a conditional sentence based on fresh evidence regarding his aggressive bladder cancer diagnosis and ongoing medical treatment requirements.

The sentencing judge had specifically crafted the custodial sentence to ensure access to adequate healthcare facilities.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's medical needs were being adequately addressed within the correctional facility and through arrangements with local health facilities, and that the sentencing judge had not erred in principle or imposed a demonstrably unfit sentence.

Appeal from conviction for sexual assault and related offences.

The sole ground of appeal concerned an unsuccessful application to stay proceedings for unreasonable delay.

After accounting for defence delay, the trial judge found net delay of over 18 months and identified two exceptional circumstances, including pandemic-related backlog.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to articulate how pandemic delay specifically impacted the case and by speaking in generalities.

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's reasoning, finding it was open to her to rely on her familiarity with the jurisdiction and the pandemic delay it was experiencing, and that she was not required to assign the delay to a particular period of time.

The Ontario Review Board convened a hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code to review the hospital's decision to readmit the NCR accused from his community residence, significantly increasing the restrictions on his liberty.

The accused's physical and mental health had precipitously declined, leading to verbal aggression and respiratory failure.

The Board found that the hospital's decision to readmit the accused was necessary and appropriate to manage his risk to public safety and provide necessary care.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching entered on November 22, 2023.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's refusal to instruct the jury to disregard Crown closing submissions regarding the absence of the complainant's mother's testimony about witnessing the alleged incidents.

The appellant argued that the Crown's submission was improper because the mother had told police she witnessed an incident that was not testified to at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Crown properly based its submission on evidence actually led at trial and that defence counsel's failure to cross-examine the mother about her police statement was a tactical decision.

The appellant, Errol Francis, appealed the sentence imposed for sexual assault.

The only issue on appeal was whether the sentencing judge erred by not considering that a conditional sentence order would have preserved the appellant’s right to appeal under s. 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Court of Appeal found that, although defence counsel misstated the law, the sentencing judge’s reasons made clear that a conditional sentence would have been unfit given the seriousness of the case.

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

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty of an accused found not criminally responsible, who was readmitted to the hospital from his community residence.

The readmission followed an incident where the accused became aggressive towards a caregiver attempting to enforce a medication administration protocol.

Applying the Campbell framework, the Board found that the initial restriction of liberty and the subsequent period of hospitalization were warranted and constituted the least restrictive and least onerous intervention in the circumstances.

The Crown appealed an application judge's order staying drug trafficking proceedings against the respondents due to a breach of their right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling, and the Crown argued the delay was justified by the complexity of the multi-accused project investigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the Crown failed to meet its burden to show the case was sufficiently complex to justify the delay, particularly since the respondents were not participating in a lengthy pre-trial application that complicated other related prosecutions.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder following a fatal stabbing during an altercation.

At trial, he relied on self-defence and the partial defence of provocation.

During deliberations, the jury asked several questions seeking clarification on the elements of provocation, specifically the meaning of 'sudden' and 'sufficient'.

The trial judge's answers failed to adequately clarify the issues and amounted to misdirection regarding what conduct had to be sudden.

The Court of Appeal found the answers deficient, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his domestic partner and was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit, based on a joint submission.

On appeal, he argued for a further sentence reduction due to harsh conditions in pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the sentence was based on a joint submission by experienced counsel and was entirely fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction on two counts of sexual assault relating to two complainants at a house party.

He argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and provided insufficient reasons for her factual conclusions regarding his credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessments were sound, available on the record, and supported by clear reasons.

The appellant, convicted by a jury on three counts of sexual assault, appealed his convictions.

He argued that the trial judge erred in the jury charge by improperly expressing opinions, overemphasizing the Crown's theory, and instructing on vitiation of consent through abuse of authority.

He also contended that the verdict on one count was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge fair and balanced, and the verdict reasonable, particularly in light of the similar fact evidence.