John Fennell

The offender pleaded guilty to uttering unprovoked, hate-motivated threats against an Asian couple in a public setting.

The court considered the significant impact on the victims and the broader Asian community, as well as the offender's extensive criminal record for violent offences.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed a 6-month custodial sentence followed by 18 months of probation.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the Crown's appeal from an absolute discharge imposed on Jennel Christie for assault causing bodily harm.

The Court found the sentence demonstrably unfit, given the seriousness of the offence, the lack of consideration for public interest, and errors in the sentencing judge’s reasoning regarding employment and immigration consequences.

The Court substituted a nine-month conditional sentence with strict conditions, followed by one year of probation.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence following guilty pleas to conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, unlawful confinement, and committing an offence for a criminal organization.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence, arguing his pleas were uninformed because he did not instruct his counsel to agree to the joint sentencing submission.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove his plea was uninformed, as circumstantial evidence and his own cross-examination contradicted his claims.

The sentence appeal was allowed on consent solely to strike the victim fine surcharge.

The accused, Richard Walker, brought a motion to qualify Mr. David Pellerin as an expert witness in computer forensics and viruses to support his defence against charges of possessing, accessing, and making available child pornography.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found that Mr. Pellerin did not meet the threshold requirements for expert qualification, specifically lacking clear impartiality, independence, and unbiasedness due to a prior working relationship with the accused.

Furthermore, his proposed evidence was based on incomplete information and general knowledge, making its relevance and necessity tenuous.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the risk of unduly delaying the trial, confusing the jury, and leading to an unhelpful line of inquiry.

The appellant, a member of the Batchewana First Nation, appealed his sentence for sexual assault.

The sentencing judge imposed six months' imprisonment followed by three years of probation.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in proceeding with sentencing based on an inadequate Gladue report without ordering a supplementary report.

The court directed the Crown to obtain a supplementary Gladue report to determine whether non-custodial alternatives were available.

After receiving the supplementary report, which confirmed that the Batchewana First Nation has no formal restorative justice programs and that meaningful community-based alternatives were not available, the court concluded that denunciation must be the primary sentencing objective.

The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, finding the original sentence fit and proportionate.

Appeal from conviction for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, and from sentence of six months imprisonment.

The appellant, an Aboriginal offender, challenged the trial judge's credibility findings and the sentencing judge's failure to properly apply Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sexual assault conviction appeal, stayed the unlawful confinement conviction pursuant to the Kienapple principle, and found the sentencing judge erred by proceeding without adequate Gladue and pre-sentence reports addressing community-based sentencing alternatives.

The sentence appeal was reserved pending a supplementary pre-sentence report.