John Fennel

The offender was convicted of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted or prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offences occurred during a police search of an illegal bar in Toronto in September 2019.

The offender was 21 years old at the time of the offences and 27 at sentencing.

The Crown sought 7-8 years imprisonment while the defence sought 2 years 9 months.

The court imposed a sentence of 4.5 years total (3.5 years for the firearm offence and 1 year consecutive for the drug offence), taking into account the offender's difficult background, youth at the time of the offences, and the principle of totality, balanced against the serious nature of the offences and the offender's subsequent criminal record.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Antoine Bouchard on January 23, 2022, in Thunder Bay.

The accused admitted to shooting the victim but claimed self-defence, asserting that the victim and two others were attempting to rob him while armed.

The Crown presented forensic evidence, including post-mortem examination findings and ballistics analysis.

Key witnesses included the alleged robbers and the accused.

The court found that the accused reasonably believed force was imminent, acted for the purpose of self-defence, and that his response was proportional to the threat faced.

The accused was acquitted of second-degree murder.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Baba Ouedraogo’s appeal from sentence, except to vacate the sentencing judge’s recommendation for phallometric testing.

The appellant challenged the imposition of a second Long Term Supervision Order (LTSO), the finding of substantial risk of reoffence, the imposition of lifetime prohibition orders, and the recommendation for phallometric testing.

The court found no error in the sentencing judge’s approach to issue estoppel, risk assessment, or the imposition of prohibition orders, but held that a recommendation for phallometric testing was not legally available without the offender’s consent.

The appellant, Baba Ouedraogo, appealed the imposition of a long-term supervision order following convictions for two serious sexual assaults on strangers.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the sentencing judge’s assessment, including expert evidence, justified the long-term offender designation and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed J.E.'s appeal from his designation as a dangerous offender and the imposition of an indeterminate sentence.

The court found no reversible error in the sentencing judge’s assessment of the evidence, including expert psychiatric testimony regarding the appellant’s risk and treatability.

The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that J.E. posed a high risk of recidivism and that available controls and treatments would not adequately manage his risk to the public.

The appellant, B.B., was convicted of sexual assault and two counts of common assault against his stepdaughter, N.S., following a trial in the Superior Court of Justice.

He appealed only the sexual assault conviction, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the timing of the most serious sexual assaults and erred in rejecting the testimony of S.B., the complainants’ mother.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of the evidence.

However, Dawe J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, concluding that the trial judge’s error regarding the timing of the assaults played an essential part in the reasoning process leading to conviction.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the Crown's appeal from sentence, finding that the sentencing judge erred in imposing a conditional sentence and in failing to order a consecutive sentence for participation in a criminal organization.

The court also set aside a restitution order that was not directed to a victim.

In light of the respondent's rehabilitation and time already served, the court substituted a sentence reflecting appropriate credit and stayed the remainder of the sentence and the criminal organization conviction.

The applicant, Thomy Baez-Eusebio, brought two applications: a disclosure application for the Information to Obtain (ITO) for a search warrant under the Liquor Licence Act, and a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained from a Honda Civic, alleging a breach of his section 8 Charter rights.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the applicant lacked standing to challenge the Liquor Licence Act search warrant and that the police had reasonable grounds to seize and search the Honda Civic.

The court also denied leave to cross-examine the affiant of the ITO, finding no misleading statements or deficiencies in the warrant process.

The accused, Elmi Ibrahim and Samatar Hamadu, brought an application to quash a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for premises at 2646 Victoria Ave East, Thunder Bay.

They argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds and contained misrepresentations regarding the primary residence of a key subject, 'Easy'.

The court, applying the Garofoli process, found that the redacted ITO, when read as a whole and considering the affiant's experience and corroborated confidential informant information, provided sufficient reasonable and probable grounds to believe evidence of drug trafficking would be found at the location.

The court dismissed the application to quash the warrant, ruling the evidence admissible at trial.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence seized during two police operations, alleging violations of sections 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and 9 (arbitrary detention) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The evidence was obtained from a residence and vehicle on April 16, 2021, and from the applicant's person and vehicle on April 20, 2021, in connection with a drug trafficking investigation.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the police had reasonable grounds for the search warrants and subsequent arrest and searches, based on extensive wiretap and surveillance evidence.

The appellant, Hopeton Wright, appealed his convictions for three counts of sexual interference and three counts of sexual assault (stayed) in relation to two of his common-law partner’s children.

The appeal raised two grounds: the trial judge's admission of similar fact evidence from another child of his common-law partner, and the trial judge's instructions to the jury on prior inconsistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's decision to admit the similar fact evidence, which was highly probative of a specific propensity, and no consequential error in the jury instructions regarding prior inconsistent statements.

The appellant appealed his conviction for attempted murder using a firearm, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to consider the victim's provocative conduct in assessing the specific intent to kill.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons demonstrated a proper consideration of all circumstances, including the victim's actions, when determining whether the Crown had proven intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also dismissed the application for leave to appeal sentence due to lack of submissions.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and forcible seizure, arguing the trial judge failed to provide assistance in advancing a s. 7 lost evidence claim.

The alleged lost evidence involved WhatsApp messages on phones seized by police, but the appellant repeatedly refused to provide passwords.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no viable lost evidence claim as the evidence remained in the appellant's control and police efforts to access the phones were bona fide.

The court also noted the formidable nature of the Crown's case, including an inculpatory email from the appellant.

K.K. sought bail pending his appeal of sexual offence convictions involving minor complainants.

The appeal grounds included claims that his guilty pleas were involuntary due to the trial judge's erroneous discharge of counsel and denial of an adjournment, leading to pressure to plead guilty while unrepresented.

The Court of Appeal granted bail, finding the appeal was "not frivolous" and that K.K.'s surrender could be assured with appropriate conditions.

The court also determined that detention was not necessary in the public interest, considering K.K.'s compliance with previous release terms and the ability of strict bail conditions to mitigate public safety concerns.

The appellant appealed his sixteen-year global sentence for multiple offences, including home invasion, robbery, sexual assault, and firearms offences.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by first determining a global sentence before articulating individual sentences and that the firearms sentences should have been concurrent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that setting a global sentence first is a valid sentencing method in Ontario and that the consecutive nature of the firearms offences was appropriate given their distinct nature and the clear intent of the sentencing judge.

The offender was convicted of serious sexual offences in both the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown sought Dangerous Offender (DO) and Long Term Offender (LTO) designations in both proceedings.

The offender brought a motion for directions, arguing that issue estoppel should prevent the Crown from litigating the same DO/LTO issues twice based on similar factual records.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, holding that issue estoppel does not apply to individual sentencing decisions and that the Criminal Code explicitly contemplates an offender being subject to multiple LTO designations.

This decision concerns the sentencing of H.W., who was found guilty by a jury of three counts of sexual assault and three counts of sexual interference against the daughters of his common-law partner.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victims' young age (10-13), abuse of trust within a familial context, multiple victims, and the significant, long-lasting impact on the complainants.

Mitigating factors included the offender's own traumatic history as a child victim of sexual abuse, lack of support, experience with anti-Black racism, a substantial gap in his criminal record, and the collateral consequences of serving a sentence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought 4-5 years, while the defence sought 3 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years imprisonment, with three sexual assault counts stayed.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order with the victims.

The applicant brought an application for certiorari to quash his committal for trial on a charge of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued that the preliminary hearing judge improperly admitted hearsay evidence and that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support a committal.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that evidentiary rulings are questions of law not reviewable on certiorari, and that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable inference of guilt could be drawn.

During a trial for sexual assault and sexual interference, the Crown applied to amend the indictment to expand the date range of the alleged offences to conform to the evidence of the first witness.

The defence opposed the application, arguing prejudice to their cross-examination and theory of the case.

The court granted the application, finding that the date of the offences was not an essential element and the amendment would not prejudice the accused's ability to meet the charges.

During a trial for sexual assault and sexual interference, the accused brought a Corbett application to exclude his prior criminal record if he chose to testify.

The accused's record consisted of eight convictions between 1992 and 2011, including assault and drug possession.

The court applied the Corbett factors and found that the defence had attacked the character and credibility of the Crown witnesses, making the accused's record relevant to provide a balanced picture to the jury.

The application was dismissed, allowing the Crown to cross-examine the accused on his record if he testifies.