Jessica Zita

The appellant appealed her conviction for aggravated assault of her sometimes girlfriend.

The trial judge found that the appellant caused the complainant's multiple serious wounds, rejecting the appellant's position that the injuries were self-inflicted.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in taking judicial notice of matters requiring expert evidence, specifically regarding the cause of bruising and blood stain evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly drew inferences from the evidence using common sense and human experience, without improperly taking judicial notice of matters requiring expertise.

The applicants, William Cummins and Matthew Moreira, charged with first-degree murder and robbery alongside Patrick Smith, sought severance from Mr. Smith for their joint trial.

The motion was based on the potential impact of Mr. Smith's statement to undercover officers, which they argued was exculpatory for them and necessary for their full answer and defence.

The court dismissed the application, emphasizing the legal presumption in favour of joint trials for co-accused acting in concert, the risk of inconsistent verdicts, and the truth-seeking function of a single trial.

The court found that antagonistic defences were likely to arise, and that carefully crafted jury instructions could mitigate any prejudice.

The defendant, John White, charged with murder, brought three pre-trial applications: for a change of venue from Napanee, to challenge prospective jurors for cause based on pre-trial publicity, and to question prospective jurors on their occupation.

The court dismissed all three applications, finding no sufficient evidence of community prejudice or extensive, prejudicial pre-trial publicity to warrant a change of venue or challenge for cause.

The request to question jurors on occupation was deemed academic after the challenge for cause was dismissed, and not a standalone ground for challenge.

The appellant was convicted after a two-week jury trial of possession of a prohibited firearm without a license, possession of an over-capacity magazine, possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

He was sentenced to nine years and three months' imprisonment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in failing to provide limiting instructions to the jury regarding photographs of a firearm found on the appellant's cell phone, and in failing to provide a W.(D.) instruction regarding the testimony of the appellant's brother.

The Court set aside the convictions on the firearm-related counts and ordered a new trial on those counts, while upholding the drug and proceeds convictions.

The appellant was convicted of administering a noxious substance on April 17, 2014, and acquitted of administering a stupefying substance for the purpose of sexual assault and sexual assault.

He was sentenced to nine months in custody plus two years' probation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged both the conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no inconsistency between the conviction and acquittals, and rejected arguments based on circumstantial evidence principles.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's rejection of a conditional sentence and no basis to interfere with the nine-month custodial sentence imposed.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 25, 2017.

The appellant challenged the Board's removal of the possibility of community living from her disposition conditions.

The Board had acted on a joint position to detain the appellant in the secure unit with potential transfer to the general forensic unit but not to the community.

The appellant's treating physician testified that community living was not a realistic goal given the appellant's recent incidents of unauthorized absence and violence towards hospital staff, and that the frustration of an unattainable condition had contributed to the appellant's anger and violent behavior.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it entirely reasonable to remove the community living condition based on the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of trafficking and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to public safety, as well as seeking leave to appeal his sentence.

The conviction appeal raised three grounds: erroneous credibility findings, misapprehension of evidence, and an improper adverse inference from the appellant's right to remain silent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility findings were reasonable, the evidence was not misapprehended, and no adverse inference was drawn from the appellant's silence.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found an error in the structure of the sentence and modified it to three years on the trafficking offence and one year on the weapons offence, both concurrent, less time served of 19.5 months.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder arising from a home invasion robbery of a drug dealer during which the victim was fatally stabbed.

The Crown's case relied heavily on testimony from the appellant's accomplice who pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal concerning jury instructions: the failure to give a Vetrovec warning, the failure to give a W.(D.) instruction, the instruction on common purpose liability, and improper re-examination.

The appellant also appealed his sentence of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 22 years.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that defence counsel's tactical decisions at trial were reasonable and that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in jury instructions.

The appellant appealed her sentence for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

She had been sentenced to 12 months' custody plus 10 months' probation based on the mandatory one-year minimum sentence under section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

However, the sentencing judge expressed regret at being required to impose the mandatory minimum.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory minimum as unconstitutional in R. v. Lloyd.

The Crown consented to the appeal, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the case for resentencing.

The appellants were convicted of manslaughter following a trial by judge and jury.

Their convictions on break and enter to commit robbery were stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The appellants appealed their manslaughter convictions on various grounds and sought leave to appeal their sentences.

The Crown also sought leave to appeal the sentence imposed on one appellant.

The Court of Appeal found that the jury charge on the critical counts of manslaughter was insufficient to meet the functional requirements for an adequate jury charge, particularly in failing to adequately relate the evidence to the key issues and the parties' positions.

The conviction appeals were allowed and a new trial was ordered on all original charges.

The Crown and the two accused brought several pre-trial motions ahead of a re-trial for murder and aggravated assault arising from a shooting at a house party.

The court ruled on the admissibility of various pieces of evidence, including post-offence conduct, a photograph of the deceased, a lead fragment, ammunition, and black socks with gunshot residue.

The court also dismissed a Charter application challenging a search warrant, finding the accused lacked standing as he had abandoned the apartment.

Finally, the court denied the accused's request to sit at counsel table, ordering them to remain in separate prisoner's docks with leg belts due to significant security concerns and antagonistic defences.