Jeremy D. Tatum

The Crown appealed the sentences imposed on the respondent for home invasion offences and attempting to obstruct justice.

The respondent had been sentenced to eight and one-half years for the home invasion and six months consecutive for attempting to obstruct justice by passing a note to a co-accused.

The Court of Appeal upheld the home invasion sentence, finding it lenient but not demonstrably unfit.

However, the court found the six-month sentence for attempting to obstruct justice to be demonstrably unfit and increased it to two and one-half years consecutive, emphasizing that interfering with a witness normally warrants a penitentiary term.

The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking in persons and theft, arguing the trial judge erred in her jury instructions regarding the definition of exploitation, prior inconsistent statements, and psychological safety, and erred by amending the indictment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury instructions were adequate and the amendment caused no prejudice.

The sentence appeal was allowed on consent to credit the appellant for 14 days of pre-trial custody, reducing his sentence to 29 months and 7 days.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of possession of a prohibited firearm, careless use of a firearm, and possession of marijuana following a self-inflicted gunshot wound at an industrial unit.

The appellant challenged the lawfulness of two searches: a warrantless entry and a subsequent search conducted pursuant to a warrant.

The trial judge found the warrantless search justified by exigent circumstances and the warrant valid despite exclusion of evidence obtained in breach of Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no error in the trial judge's analysis of either search.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography.

The Crown's case relied on evidence obtained when police reviewed a mirror copy of the appellant's work computer hard drive without a warrant.

The trial judge found a Charter breach under s. 8 but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

The appellant also challenged the trial judge's conclusion that possession had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis or his conclusion regarding possession based on the totality of the evidence.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice on a youth offender convicted of sexual assault.

The trial judge imposed a deferred custody order under s. 42(5) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, finding that serious bodily harm was not caused.

The Court of Appeal found this conclusion was a clear error based on the trial judge's own findings regarding the life-altering impact of the assault.

The court held that a deferred custody order was not available and the sentence was illegal.

The appeal was allowed, the illegal sentence was set aside, and a six-month nine-day custody and supervision order was imposed with credit for time served, along with a one-year probation order and a mandatory two-year weapons prohibition.

The appellant appealed a sentencing decision from the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown conceded that the appellant, who was self-represented, was deprived of a fair hearing because the trial judge failed to provide appropriate assistance to her as a self-represented party.

The appellate court found it was not in a position to make the necessary factual findings to conduct the appeal and therefore allowed the appeal, remitting the matter back to the Ontario Court of Justice for a new sentencing hearing.

The appellant appealed both his conviction and sentence from the Superior Court of Justice.

On the conviction appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's finding that there was no breach of s. 11(b) of the Charter despite significant delay.

The trial judge had calculated net delay at 50 months, exceeding the Jordan cap by 20 months, but found exceptional circumstances justified the excess delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding exceptional circumstances and the Crown's reasonable management of the complex prosecution.

On the sentence appeal, while the Court of Appeal identified a factual error regarding the timing of professional credentials, it found the error immaterial to the ultimate sentence and upheld the sentence as fit.

The appellant appealed his convictions for three counts of assault, one count of sexual assault, and one count of unlawful confinement arising from a domestic relationship.

The appellant was acquitted of four other charges and one charge was withdrawn.

He was sentenced to 21 months in jail and three years probation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's rejection of a Charter section 11(b) delay motion and raised three grounds of appeal relating to credibility evaluation and alleged errors in the trial judge's reasoning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the convictions.

The appellant was convicted of sexual interference and sexual assault by the trial judge.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on the basis of errors in the trial judge's reasoning regarding the complainant's motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by transforming an absence of evidence of motive to fabricate into a proven lack of motive, which improperly enhanced the complainant's credibility.

The court distinguished between "absence of proved motive" and "proved absence of motive" finding that the former does not logically establish truthfulness.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The accused, Omardeen and Jaggernauth, were charged with multiple offences following an altercation with two complainants.

Jaggernauth was found guilty of possessing an imitation firearm for a dangerous purpose and possession of marijuana.

Omardeen was acquitted of the joint weapons charge but found guilty of discharging a firearm at the complainants' vehicle, pointing a firearm, and related firearms and breach offences.

The court dismissed Omardeen's Charter applications, finding the warrantless entry into his home was justified by exigent circumstances and his subsequent statement to police was admissible despite an earlier breach of his right to counsel at the scene.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant was heavily intoxicated and could not recall the events.

The trial judge found the complainant incapable of consenting due to intoxication and rejected the appellant's defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent, finding he had not taken reasonable steps to determine consent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the law despite some evidentiary misapprehensions that did not affect the verdict.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition finding that she continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the community.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge despite having requested a conditional discharge from the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding of significant threat as reasonable, noting that although the appellant had complied with the conditional discharge order for almost a year, the Board had concerns regarding the serious nature of the index offence, the appellant's history of substance abuse, and her continuing mental health symptoms.

The court also noted that all parties had made a joint submission accepting significant threat as not an issue for the Board.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and ordered detained at Waypoint Centre, a maximum security facility.

On appeal, the appellant sought to have the detention order set aside and a new hearing directed to consider placement at Ontario Shores, a medium security facility.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Review Board's decision, finding that while the appellant's recent conduct was positive, the Board was required to consider the entire picture, including the serious nature of the mental illness, the long history of mental disorder accompanied by serious criminal activity, past non-compliance with medication, and demonstrated history of quick decompensation and violence when medication was discontinued.

The court found the Board's conclusion that a transfer to medium security was premature was not unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a sentence of four years imposed for fraud offences.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing decision.

The court determined that the four-year sentence appropriately reflected the restraint principle given the quantum and duration of the fraud, the absence of genuine remorse, and the devastating impact on victims.

The court also found that the trial judge had properly assessed the mitigating evidence and was entitled to be unimpressed with much of the mitigation evidence presented.

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

The defendant, Nima Alamouti, was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant, M.P., by anal intercourse without consent.

The trial involved conflicting accounts of the events, particularly regarding the nature of the sexual activity and the complainant's consent.

The court considered the credibility of both the complainant and the defendant, as well as corroborating evidence from a third-party witness.

Ultimately, the court found inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and the defendant's reaction, leading to a reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's guilt.

During a trial for child pornography offences, the accused brought a mistrial application after the Crown introduced an unannounced in-court demonstration by a police technical analyst to rebut evidence elicited during the cross-examination of the Crown's computer forensics expert.

The accused argued the analyst gave unqualified expert evidence and the demonstration constituted trial by ambush.

The court held that the analyst's testimony was factual, not expert opinion, but ruled the demonstration inadmissible due to the lack of prior disclosure.

The mistrial application was dismissed, with the court finding that excluding the demonstration and allowing the defence to recall witnesses or call their own expert was a sufficient remedy.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbing Jonathan Pavkovic in Orangeville on July 31, 2016.

The offence involved a vicious unprovoked sucker punch that rendered the victim unconscious, followed by theft of his wallet, house keys, and cell phone while he lay bleeding and defenceless.

The offender was intoxicated, driving with a suspended licence in violation of an alcohol-free condition, and ignored pleas from his companion to desist.

The offender has an extensive criminal history including twelve violent convictions over fourteen years and demonstrated poor institutional behaviour during 372 days of pre-trial custody.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence with 1:1 credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 170 days remaining, followed by three years probation with strict conditions including restitution, DNA order, lifetime firearms prohibition, and communication prohibition.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of communicating with minors (ages 14 and 16) for the purpose of obtaining sexual services.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 3-6 months on each count, consecutive.

The defence sought fines or a conditional sentence.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that the offender was in a position of trust and exploited it.

Balancing significant aggravating factors (two victims, callous conduct, high moral blameworthiness) against substantial mitigating factors (first-time offender, guilty plea before trial, no actual sexual activity, low reoffending risk), the court imposed substantial fines rather than incarceration, finding this met the objectives of deterrence and denunciation.

The accused stood trial on historical sexual offence allegations involving a child relative over a period from 1994 to 2000.

The court found the complainant to be a very credible witness notwithstanding memory gaps about peripheral details, accepted her explanations for delayed disclosure, and found corroborative support in parts of her mother's evidence.

The court convicted the accused of two counts of sexual interference, one count of sexual exploitation based on a conceded position of trust, and two included counts of assault arising from non-consensual touching.

The accused was acquitted on two remaining counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to defrauding a non-profit minor baseball association of $468,166.66 over a six-year period while serving as Treasurer.

The Crown sought imprisonment for two to three years, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day in the community followed by three years probation, along with restitution orders and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The court balanced the serious aggravating factors (breach of trust, large amount, extended period) against mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, no prior record, family support, and rehabilitation potential) and found that a conditional sentence could achieve denunciation and deterrence while promoting restorative justice.