Joan Barrett

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by a summary conviction appeal court judge.

The appellant conceded that the appeal must be dismissed unless the court was prepared to overrule its previous decision in R. v. Hatfield.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to depart from the precedent and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower courts that the appellant was in care and control.

The court noted the appellant was heavily intoxicated, the keys were in the ignition, the car was running, and he had stated an intention to resume driving.

The appellant appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board ordering her detention pursuant to section 672.54(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Board had found that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety, and evidence showed her conduct had deteriorated while in hospital and the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the Board's conclusion that a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Crown sought a review of an order granting judicial interim release to a 17-year-old charged with first degree murder.

The motion judge had considered the youth's detention conditions, including the lack of a local youth facility and the resulting impairment of his ability to instruct counsel, under the tertiary grounds for bail.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the release order, holding that detention conditions can be a relevant consideration when assessing whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The Crown appealed an eleven-month conditional sentence and one-year probation order imposed on the respondent following guilty pleas to robbery, break and enter, uttering a death threat, and theft under.

The offences included a home invasion committed while the respondent was on release and probation orders.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence demonstrably unfit, allowed the appeal, and substituted a further period of imprisonment of 8 months, taking into account pre-trial custody and time served under the conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence of 11 months' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the appellant did not meet the requirements for setting aside a guilty plea as set out in R. v. Adgey.

The court also found the 11-month sentence to be fit and dismissed the sentence appeal.

The appellant was charged with aggravated assault and failure to provide necessaries of life to a child.

The trial judge granted a stay of proceedings due to a 21-month delay between the appellant's arrest and the trial date.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and set aside the stay.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as of right, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the delay did not infringe the appellant's right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered by a summary conviction appeal court judge, who had overturned the respondent's conviction for 'over 80' while having care or control of a motor vehicle.

The respondent had driven her vehicle into a ditch and subsequently consumed more alcohol before police arrived.

The trial judge rejected her evidence of post-offence drinking and found she had care or control of the operable vehicle.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding that the summary conviction appeal judge erred by substituting his own findings of fact regarding care or control and credibility, and by faulting the trial judge's application of the W.D. test.

The conviction and sentence were restored.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after shooting his wife.

At trial, he raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The defence called three psychiatrists who testified that the appellant suffered from a mental disorder, while the Crown called no psychiatric evidence.

The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing the jury's guilty verdict was unreasonable as it conflicted with the uncontradicted expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury was entitled to reject the factual underpinnings of the experts' opinions, which were based largely on the appellant's own statements, and to rely on other evidence surrounding the shooting to conclude the NCR defence was not established.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence of eight years for assault causing bodily harm, robbery, extortion, forcible confinement, aggravated assault, and theft over.

The charges arose from a vicious beating and robbery where the appellant was identified by eyewitnesses and ATM surveillance footage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to exclude the appellant's criminal record under Corbett, the admission of evidence regarding a child witness's identification, or the handling of a Crown interruption during closing arguments.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the disparity between the appellant's sentence and his co-accused's was justified by the appellant's role as the instigator and his prior record.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose against the nine-year-old son of his former girlfriend.

The appellant argued that the trial judge applied an unfairly rigorous standard of scrutiny to his evidence compared to the Crown witnesses.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the record and found ample reason to disbelieve the appellant, noting multiple inconsistencies, exaggerations, and fabrications in his testimony.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted to the respondent on the basis of a 21-month delay violating her s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The respondent was charged with aggravated assault and failing to provide the necessaries of life after her infant child suffered multiple fractures.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in calculating the delay attributable to the Crown and overemphasized the prejudice suffered by the respondent.

The stay was set aside and the matter remitted for trial, with Feldman J.A. dissenting.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 12 years following a retrial.

He appealed the conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge improperly intervened during the cross-examination of the main Crown witness and erred in admitting clothing seized in breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's interventions did not result in a miscarriage of justice and that the admission of the seized clothing would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court also upheld the 12-year parole ineligibility period, noting it reflected a careful consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors as well as the jury's recommendation.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to grant a stay of proceedings after police negligently lost a five-minute videotaped statement from an eyewitness.

The trial judge found the loss breached the respondents' s. 7 Charter rights and prejudiced their ability to make full answer and defence.

The Court of Appeal agreed there was a s. 7 breach but held that a stay was inappropriate, as the lost evidence did not cause irreparable harm to the integrity of the justice system or such prejudice that no other remedy would suffice.

The Court noted other remedies, such as excluding the identification evidence, were available.

The stay was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellants, two young persons charged with manslaughter and robbery, appealed orders transferring their proceedings to ordinary court.

The youth court had concluded that the first appellant could not be rehabilitated within the three-year maximum youth disposition, and that while the second appellant could be rehabilitated, the gravity of the offence required transfer.

The Court of Appeal allowed both appeals, finding that the youth court placed undue emphasis on speculative psychological evidence for the first appellant and misapplied the statutory test for the second appellant by relying on general deterrence.

The Court ordered both youths to be tried in youth court.

The appellant was convicted of assaulting a police officer and his summary conviction appeal was dismissed.

He appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing the trial judge applied an uneven standard of scrutiny to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence based on minor contradictions while ignoring the police officers' lack of candour regarding the collaboration on their notes.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal was entered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The trial judge had relied on evidence of an incident at a Christmas party seven years prior to the alleged assault to infer that the appellant had a sexual inclination toward the complainant.

The Court of Appeal held that this inference was unreasonable and central to the conviction, requiring the verdict to be quashed.

However, the Court rejected the argument that the verdict itself was unreasonable under s. 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, as a reasonable trier of fact could have accepted the complainant's evidence.

A new trial was ordered.