Jeffrey Joseph Paul Langevin

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal noted that the sentencing judge's reasons were not helpful and failed to address mitigating factors such as the guilty plea and rehabilitative efforts.

However, the Court ultimately concluded that the total sentences imposed were fit in all the circumstances and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed her conviction for possession of property obtained by crime, arguing the trial judge erred in applying the doctrine of recent possession to a truck stolen 56 days before she registered it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that whether possession was recent is a question of fact depending on the circumstances, and the trial judge's finding based on significant alterations to the truck was entitled to deference.

The court also found the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her possession.

The appellant was acquitted at trial after the trial judge excluded evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding the appellant had a realistic opportunity to consult counsel during the delay in obtaining an approved screening device.

The summary conviction appeal judge overturned the acquittal.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the summary conviction appeal judge erred by retrying the case, as the trial judge applied the correct test and her findings were entitled to deference.

The appeal was allowed and the acquittal restored.

The appellant appealed a sentence of two years less a day, arguing the trial judge closed his mind to a conditional sentence by revoking bail during an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge had not closed his mind and that the sentence was within the appropriate range.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for breaching his probation.

The conviction appeal was not pressed in oral argument and was dismissed as there was ample evidence to support it.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the custodial portion had already been served and was moot.

The court found the sentence was not outside the range and there was no error in principle, noting the appellant breached his probation in a calculated and escalating manner by exposing the victim's personal information online.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting the original statement of a witness for the truth of its contents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence demonstrated the appropriate level of reliability and the trial judge did not err in admitting it.

Following the release of the court's judgment, the appellant failed to file written submissions regarding the remaining property issues affected by the respondent's bankruptcy.

Consequently, the appeal with respect to all remaining issues was dismissed as abandoned.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal payable to the respondent at $12,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The father appealed a trial judgment regarding child support arrears and custody, while the mother cross-appealed a condition requiring her to relocate to Ottawa to retain custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the father's appeal, upholding the reduction in support arrears and the award of custody to the mother.

The Court allowed the mother's cross-appeal, striking down the condition that she return to Ottawa, finding that uprooting the children from their established environment in Stoney Creek was not in their best interests.

A young person appealed the dismissal of a habeas corpus application challenging repeated administrative renewals of a transfer from open custody to secure custody under the Young Offenders Act.

The majority held that, in Ontario, where custody level is judicially determined, the Provincial Director's authority under s. 24.2(9) permits only a temporary 15-day interference unless the young person is returned to open custody and fresh grounds arising there justify a new transfer.

Continuous renewals while the young person remained in secure custody were found to impermissibly subvert the original judicial order for open custody.

The appeal was allowed notwithstanding mootness concerns because the disposition had already been served.