Jim Clark

The appellant appealed conviction and sentence on charges of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm in a vehicle, possession of MDMA, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in Charter rulings regarding arbitrary detention under s. 9 and unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8, and that the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on a driving prohibition, the search of a satchel near the appellant's leg was a valid search incident to arrest, and the trial judge's findings on knowledge and control for possession were supported by the record.

On sentence, the appellant argued the trial judge failed to address anti-Black racism principles from Morris.

The court found the failure did not impact the sentence, which was at the low end of the range for a second firearm offence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals of Habibullah Daniel Ahmadi, who was convicted of second degree murder for the fatal assault of Sara Anne Widholm.

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge erred in using Ahmadi’s out-of-court statements as circumstantial evidence of guilt, failed to consider critical evidence on intent, and improperly relied on after-the-fact conduct.

The Court found no legal error in the trial judge’s treatment of the evidence, including the assessment of intoxication and intent, and upheld the 13-year parole ineligibility period.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter for acting as the getaway driver in a premeditated murder-for-hire plot.

He was sentenced to nine and a half years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge erred in finding he was aware the shooter had a gun and that the sentence was unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and consistent with the jury's verdict.

The sentence was held to be fit given the appellant's significant moral culpability and the premeditated nature of the offence.

The appellant sought to overturn convictions for possession of a stolen vehicle, drugs for trafficking, careless use of a firearm, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and challenged the total 10-year sentence.

The conviction appeal argued misapprehension of evidence regarding the firearm's location.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, noting the judge's reasoned assessment of witness credibility despite inconsistencies.

The sentence appeal contended errors in applying the totality principle and the correct sentencing range for recidivist firearms offenders.

The Court affirmed that sentencing ranges are flexible and that the imposed sentence was proportionate, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation given the gravity of the offences involving guns and drugs, and the offender's extensive criminal record, while acknowledging mitigating factors.

Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, convicted of firearms offences including intentional discharge of a restricted firearm, appealed his conviction and sentence.

He challenged the trial judge's W.(D.) instruction and treatment of defence expert evidence in the jury charge, arguing they were inconsistent with the defence theory and confusing, especially given the Crown's closing submissions.

Alternatively, he sought leave to appeal the five-year custodial sentence, contending the trial judge erred by not considering a sentence below the mandatory minimum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no reversible error in the jury charge or the sentencing decision.

The appellants, convicted of murder, appealed on grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge and violation of their right to be present.

The trial judge repeatedly encouraged guilty pleas in chambers and directly to the accused, expressing strong opinions on the evidence and linking rulings to plea outcomes.

The Court of Appeal found that the judge's conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias and infringed the accused's right to be present under s. 650(1) of the Criminal Code, compromising the fairness and integrity of the trial.

The appeals were allowed, and a new trial was ordered for both appellants.

The appellant, Bill Allison, appealed his conviction for firearms trafficking offences, including conspiracy and offering a restricted firearm for sale, in association with a criminal organization.

The case relied on circumstantial evidence from intercepted telephone communications, which the appellant argued were ambiguous and did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant claimed the firearms were for personal use or that conversations related to drug trafficking.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that her methodical assessment of the evidence, including expert testimony on coded language and Jamaican Patois, was exemplary and that the verdict was not unreasonable despite some ambiguities.

The appellant, G.S., appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual exploitation, and his sentence.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's decision to allow the Crown to re-examine the complainant on prior consistent statements and the sufficiency of jury instructions regarding these statements.

The appellant also argued the five-and-a-half-year custodial sentence was unfit and that the trial judge failed to consider the principle of restraint.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the admission or instruction on prior consistent statements, as the defence had implicitly alleged recent fabrication.

The Court granted leave to appeal sentence but only varied the lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order to 20 years, upholding the custodial sentence.

The applicant sought release pending appeal of convictions for two counts of sexual assault, one count of making child pornography, and one count of voyeurism, along with a six-and-a-half-year custodial sentence.

The court assessed the application under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, considering whether the appeal was frivolous, the applicant would surrender, and detention was necessary in the public interest.

While the appeal was deemed not frivolous and the applicant would surrender, the court found that detention was necessary in the public interest.

This was due to the serious nature of the offences against a child victim, the imposition of a lengthy penitentiary sentence, and the preliminary assessment that the grounds of appeal, while not frivolous, did not clearly surpass that minimal standard.

The application for release pending appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought bail pending his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada after his appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.

The court applied the three-part test under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, finding that the application for leave was not frivolous, the applicant would surrender, and detention was not necessary in the public interest.

This decision considered the applicant's age, lack of criminal record, the lower end of seriousness for the firearm offences, and the significant portion of his 30-month sentence that the leave process would cover.

The application for bail was granted.

The appellant, Rene Hamouth, appealed convictions for multiple firearm-related offences and his sentence.

The appeal challenged the lawfulness of the search warrant (Garofoli issue), the trial judge's s. 24(2) Charter analysis regarding the exclusion of firearms and ammunition, and the finding of possession of firearms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals, except for one count related to a non-restricted firearm (Winchester shotgun), which was substituted from s. 95(1) to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court upheld the trial judge's Garofoli analysis, his s. 24(2) analysis (including the consideration of the Crown's concession to exclude incriminating statements and the lack of causal connection between the Charter breaches and the discovery of firearms), and the finding of possession.