Jenny Prosser

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, as well as the sentence imposed.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal against conviction: (1) that the trial judge erred in assessing his credibility by incorporating findings of bad character, thereby tainting her analysis with impermissible propensity reasoning; and (2) that the trial judge applied uneven levels of scrutiny in assessing the evidence of the complainant versus the appellant's evidence.

The appellant also appealed the 17-month custodial sentence as excessive.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal against conviction but granted a "Downes credit" for time spent on stringent bail conditions pending appeal, reducing the custodial sentence from 17 months to 7 months, with 1 month already served, requiring the appellant to serve 6 additional months in custody.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences, applied to exclude evidence seized from his basement residence pursuant to a search warrant, alleging breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

He argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) relied on uncorroborated confidential informant tips and contained misleading statements.

The court excised certain overstatements from the ITO but found the remaining information, including corroborated tips and police surveillance, established reasonable and probable grounds for the search.

The court further held that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) as the police acted in good faith and the societal interest in adjudicating serious drug and firearms charges favoured admission.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, facing a multi-count indictment including charges of sexual assault, criminal harassment, firearms offences, and failure to comply with a release order, brought a motion for severance under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant sought to have the charges severed into five separate trials, arguing that trying them together would cause prejudice and risk the jury engaging in propensity reasoning.

The court applied the factors from R. v. Last and found that the counts shared a factual and legal nexus, primarily revolving around the credibility of the complainants.

The court concluded that the risk of prejudice was low, as juries are presumed capable of following limiting instructions, and that practical considerations, including witness convenience and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, favoured a single trial.

The motion for severance was dismissed.

The Crown and defence attended a case conference to determine whether the defendant's sentencing hearing should proceed remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant objected to a remote hearing and requested an in-person hearing.

The court ordered that the hearing proceed by videoconference pursuant to the newly enacted provisions of the Criminal Code, finding that a remote hearing would be fair, public, and appropriate given public health concerns.

The applicant, having pleaded guilty to manslaughter, sought interim release pending sentencing.

The court considered the release plan, including electronic monitoring and cultural supports, against the applicant's lengthy criminal record, history of non-compliance, and the serious nature of the offence.

Despite the principles favouring release for Aboriginal accused and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the court found that detention was justified on both secondary (public safety) and tertiary (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice) grounds.

The court endorsed previous findings that the applicant's history of re-offending and non-compliance outweighed the proposed supervision plan.

The applicant, facing multiple firearms and driving charges, sought a review of a detention order under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code and a 90-day detention review under s. 525.

The applicant argued that the Covid-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court agreed, finding that the pandemic is a material change allowing for a de novo bail hearing, regardless of whether the accused has underlying health issues.

Upon reviewing the proposed bail plan involving strict house arrest with sureties, the court found the applicant met his reverse onus and granted release.

The Crown appealed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge imposed a demonstrably unfit sentence by failing to recognize that denunciation and general deterrence are paramount sentencing objectives for the offence and by concluding that the minimum sentence required under s. 85(3)(a) of the Criminal Code was grossly disproportionate.

The trial judge's declaration that s. 85(3)(a) was invalid was set aside.

The Court of Appeal substituted a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, reduced by pre-trial bail conditions and pre-sentence custody credits, resulting in an effective sentence of 13 months less 38 days.

Three appellants appealed their convictions for drug trafficking offences arising from Project O'Bunker, a large joint forces investigation in London, Ontario.

The appellants challenged the dismissal of their s. 11(b) Charter applications alleging unreasonable delay, and one appellant also challenged his conviction on the merits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, finding that while the total delay of 39-40 months exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 30 months established in R. v. Jordan, the delay was justified by the exceptional complexity of the prosecution and the transitional exceptional circumstance based on reasonable reliance on the previous Morin framework.

The applicant, convicted of first degree murder for the sexual assault and murder of his wife, applied under the 'faint hope clause' (s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code) for a reduction in his 25-year parole ineligibility period.

The court conducted a judicial screening to determine if there was a substantial likelihood that a jury would unanimously recommend early parole.

Finding that the applicant maintained his innocence, showed no meaningful character change, and that the index offence was highly aggravating, the court concluded the applicant failed to meet the burden.

The application was dismissed.