Jeffrey Couse

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of a firearm, arguing the trial judge erred by not excluding the firearm evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding a s. 8 breach from a facially invalid search warrant.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the Grant framework, noting the breach was deemed the product of sloppiness rather than bad faith.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court deferring to the trial judge's balancing of the factors.

The appellant appealed his jury convictions for sexual assault and assault against his spouse.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to give a limiting instruction regarding evidence of his controlling behaviour and by failing to caution against cross-count reasoning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the contextual evidence was relevant to the issue of consent and that a cross-count reasoning caution was unnecessary because the physical and sexual assaults were inextricably linked.

The appellant, T.L., appealed his conviction for three counts of sexual exploitation of his stepdaughter, arguing the trial judge's reasons were inadequate for appellate review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient, as they clearly explained the acceptance of the complainant's credible evidence and the rejection of the appellant's denial, consistent with the principles in R. v. W.(D.).

The appellant, Caleb Burgler, appealed his sentence for criminal negligence causing death, arguing the sentencing judge erred by not crediting his unsuccessful rehabilitation attempts and not considering his drug addiction as a mitigating factor.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, affirming that drug addiction is not a general mitigating factor for such crimes and that the sentencing judge appropriately considered the appellant's efforts and ongoing addiction in assessing reoffending risk and public protection.

The court also upheld the probation terms and weapons prohibition as within the sentencing judge's discretion.

The appellant, F.C., appealed convictions for 12 sex-related offences, raising two grounds: the trial judge's denial of a severance motion and an alleged improper jury charge on the human trafficking offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's holistic application of the R. v. Last factors for severance, nor in the jury instruction on human trafficking, which was deemed sufficient given the factual context and absence of trial counsel objection.

The appellant was convicted of firearm charges and appealed, arguing that his initial arrest for breach of an undertaking was unlawful, leading to an illegal search and discovery of the firearm, thus violating his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the initial arrest due to their failure to check an available database (Versadex) for consent to communicate, constituting a s. 9 Charter breach.

However, the Court also determined that the police had independent lawful grounds to search the vehicle under the Cannabis Control Act, 2017, based on observations of marijuana possession.

Applying a fresh s. 24(2) Charter analysis, the Court concluded that despite the s. 9 breach, the firearm evidence should not be excluded, as the impact on the appellant's Charter rights was minimal (due to the lawful CCA search) and society's interest in adjudicating serious charges on their merits strongly favored admission.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with multiple Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences following a minor collision, flight from the scene, and discovery of a firearm and illicit drugs.

Key issues included identity, the admissibility of cell phone data under section 8 of the Charter due to alleged police non-compliance with reporting requirements, and proof of drug quantity for trafficking charges.

The court found the defendant guilty of most charges, including possession of the firearm and drugs, but acquitted him of possession for the purpose of trafficking due to insufficient evidence on drug quantity.

The defendant, Mordecai Gal, was charged with sexual exploitation under s. 153 of the Criminal Code involving a 16-year-old complainant from a Muslim youth group.

The central issue was whether the defendant, as an older and respected member of the group, stood in a position of trust towards the complainant.

The court found a 12-year age difference, the defendant's role as a mentor and confidant, and the complainant's vulnerability due to an isolated home life.

The defendant exploited this vulnerability by encouraging a "temporary marriage" with promises of financial and housing independence, despite parental disapproval.

The court concluded that the defendant occupied a position of trust and exploited the complainant, finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant, R.V., appealed his sentence for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching.

Following the Supreme Court of Canada's restoration of his convictions, the case was remitted to the Court of Appeal for Ontario to consider the sentence appeal.

Fresh medical evidence, filed with the Crown's consent, revealed the appellant had terminal cancer with a very bleak prognosis.

In light of these exceptional circumstances, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the original term of imprisonment and probation order, and substituting an 18-month conditional sentence order.

Other orders from the trial judge remained in force.

The appellant, J.A., appealed convictions for second-degree murder of his daughter and attempted murder of his son.

The charges stemmed from an incident where he administered adult medication (Sleep MD, Nytol) and alcohol to his young children (ages 6 and 7), resulting in his daughter's death and his son's survival, as part of a failed murder-suicide attempt.

The appeal raised five grounds, primarily challenging the trial judge's "common-sense inference" instructions regarding intent, the failure to relate evidence to essential issues, and other jury charge errors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the common-sense inference instruction proper as death and serious bodily harm were predictable consequences of the appellant's actions, and the toxicology evidence did not dispel this inference.

The court also found no reversible error in the trial judge's instructions on evidence relevance to intent.

The appellant, Gilberto Montoya, appealed his convictions for assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown had disproven self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial judge found the appellant's response, using a belt buckle as a weapon, was disproportionate and unreasonable.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by finding he was acting in concert, failing to consider all factors under s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code, and applying an unrealistically stringent proportionality test.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the self-defence principles.

The appellants were convicted of three counts of robbery with a firearm, three counts of forcible confinement, and one count of breaking and entering with intent to commit robbery.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence including text messages discussing obtaining a firearm, cell phone tower evidence placing the "Flyd" phone near the robbery location, fingerprint evidence linking Miles to the scene, and Miles' prior employment at the store.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sought leave to appeal sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals and the sentence appeals, finding that despite a hearsay error regarding the post-it note evidence linking Miles to the phone, the curative proviso applied as the evidence against Miles was overwhelming.

The defendant, Courtney Dennis, challenged the lawfulness of his warrantless arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and the subsequent search incident to arrest, arguing a violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The police relied on information from a confidential informant, corroborated by police investigation and the defendant's criminal record.

The court found that the arresting officer had subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, satisfying the criteria for informant reliability and corroboration as established in Debot.

Consequently, the arrest was lawful, the search incident to arrest was authorized, and the seized evidence was admissible at trial.