John Joseph Corelli

The Crown brought applications for the forfeiture of hundreds of forged paintings attributed to Norval Morrisseau.

The Estate of Norval Morrisseau brought a motion seeking standing as a party or leave to intervene, as well as leave to file expert evidence regarding the adverse effects of preserving the forgeries.

The court found that the Estate had a valid interest in the property and granted it leave to intervene.

The Estate's participation was limited to leading expert evidence on the harms caused by the forgeries and making submissions grounded in the evidentiary record.

The Crown brought applications for the return and forfeiture of hundreds of paintings and objects of art seized during the Voss, Lamont, Cowan, White, and Bremner investigations into forged art.

At a case conference, the court set out the evidentiary basis for the applications and directed that the parties must sign an undertaking restricting the use and dissemination of the disclosure material before the Crown provides it.

The court scheduled a further case conference to review the status of disclosure and set a schedule for the delivery of application records and responding materials.

The Crown applied to hold joint forfeiture hearings in multiple related prosecutions involving over 1,000 allegedly forged artworks seized from third parties.

The third parties and proposed intervenors either took no position or did not oppose the application.

The court granted the application, finding that a joint hearing involving common third parties, evidence, and legal issues would be the most efficient process and ensure a consistent application of the law.

This case involves the sentencing of David Voss for his significant role in a large-scale art fraud scheme involving forged paintings attributed to the renowned Indigenous artist Norval Morrisseau.

The court emphasized the profound and far-reaching damage caused by the fraud, extending beyond financial losses to the cultural and spiritual identity of Indigenous art and artists.

Voss was sentenced to five years in a penitentiary for two charges of fraud.

Other charges against Voss and all charges against co-accused Diane Champagne were withdrawn.

The court declined to order restitution due to the immense complexity of identifying all victims and quantifying losses, deeming it unmanageable and detrimental to the administration of justice.

A forfeiture order was made for the identified forged artwork.

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting death of Kenneth Mark.

The Crown's theory was that the killing was retaliatory in nature, motivated by the victim's breach of the code of silence by identifying the appellant in connection with a prior attempted murder.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: (1) the admissibility of evidence regarding the prior attempted murder and the victim's fear of retaliation; (2) the admissibility of rap lyrics authored by the appellant; and (3) errors in the Crown's closing address regarding the appellant's late disclosure of an alibi and the false testimony of Crown witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and affirmed the conviction.

Four appellants appealed their convictions for fraud over $5,000 and conspiracy to commit fraud, as well as a count of knowingly contributing to an activity of a criminal organization.

The convictions arose from a large-scale telemarketing advance fee scheme operating from multiple "boiler rooms" in the Toronto area, where telemarketers defrauded American residents by falsely promising loans from fictitious lenders and demanding advance payments.

The Crown's case relied on fingerprint evidence, surveillance evidence, and the appellants' presence at the locations.

The appellants challenged various aspects of the trial, including jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and the reasonableness of the verdicts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all conviction appeals, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's conduct or instructions, and concluding that the verdicts were reasonable on the evidence.

The self-represented appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred in his credibility findings regarding various witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, declining to re-try the case or interfere with the trial judge's credibility assessments.

The court also found no basis to conclude that the sentence was unfit.

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder after a housekeeper was strangled to death during a break and enter.

At trial, each accused blamed the other for the killing.

On appeal, they argued the trial judge erred in his instructions regarding party liability, the use of lies to police, and the evidence of a co-accused's ex-wife.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no errors in the jury instructions on common purpose liability or post-offence conduct, and concluding that the Crown's cross-examination did not render the trial unfair.

The appellants, members of the Bandidos motorcycle gang, appealed their convictions for multiple counts of first degree murder and manslaughter arising from the execution-style killings of eight fellow gang members.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in ruling that the common law defence of duress was unavailable to persons charged as parties to murder.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law, as the common law defence of duress remains available to parties to murder.

However, the Court dismissed the appeals, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice because there was no air of reality to the duress defence for any of the appellants on the evidence.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding they breached the Securities Act by failing to disclose material changes regarding their mining leases in Sierra Leone.

The appellants argued the leases were not material and the Commission improperly relied on hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission's decision reasonable, as the company had invested heavily in the leases and actively tried to retain them, making the risk of their loss a material change requiring public disclosure.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents breached continuous disclosure obligations by failing to disclose the potential revocation of mining leases in Sierra Leone, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Commission declined to impose administrative penalties or order the corporate respondent to implement new disclosure policies because Staff failed to provide adequate notice of these specific sanctions in the Notice of Hearing.

The CEO, who was the driving force behind the non-disclosure, was reprimanded and banned from acting as a director or officer of any issuer for 10 years.

The CFO, who acquiesced in the failures, was reprimanded and banned for 12 months.

The corporate respondent and the CEO were ordered to pay $60,000 and $40,000 respectively towards the costs of the investigation and hearing.

The appellant challenged firearms convictions arising from a street encounter with police, alleging arbitrary detention and breach of the right to counsel before he disclosed possession of a firearm.

The Court held that a psychological detention had crystallized during the encounter, that the detention was arbitrary under s. 9, and that the failure to advise of counsel breached s. 10(b).

The Court reformulated the legal framework for detention and established a revised three-part approach to exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2), ultimately admitting the firearm because the police conduct, though unconstitutional, was not egregious and the evidence was highly reliable and essential.

The Court also held that simple movement of a firearm from place to place did not constitute a 'transfer' for the purpose of the weapons trafficking offence, and entered an acquittal on that count.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine whether Rex Diamond Mining Corporation and its officers breached the Securities Act by failing to disclose material changes regarding the cancellation of its mining leases in Sierra Leone.

The Commission found that Rex failed to issue news releases and file material change reports when it received warning letters and notices that its leases were cancelled.

The Commission also found that Rex provided misleading disclosure in its public filings and provided an incomplete chronology to Market Regulation Services Inc. The CEO and CFO were found to have authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in these breaches, acting contrary to the public interest.

The appellants, Muhammad and Naveed Malik, appealed their convictions for first degree murder following a joint trial.

The deceased was beaten to death with baseball bats in a parking garage.

Both appellants conceded guilt to manslaughter but contested the intent to kill and whether the killing was planned and deliberate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding sufficient evidence of planning and deliberation for both appellants, and upholding the trial judge's rulings on evidence admissibility, jury instructions, and the denial of a severance motion.

The appellants, who were youthful offenders, participated in an unprovoked machete attack on a randomly selected victim, causing serious injuries.

They were convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to seven and a half years' imprisonment.

On appeal, they argued the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to their youth and erred in not granting enhanced pre-trial custody credit for poor institutional conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the severity of the violent crime, and that there was no specific evidence of hardship to justify enhanced pre-trial custody credit.

The appellant, an 18-year-old, was stopped by three police officers on the street and asked if he had anything he shouldn't.

He admitted to possessing marijuana and a loaded revolver.

At trial, he argued his Charter rights under ss. 8 and 9 were violated and sought to exclude the firearm under s. 24(2).

The trial judge found no detention or search and convicted him.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the appellant was arbitrarily detained (s. 9 breach) but that the questioning did not constitute a search (no s. 8 breach).

Applying the Collins/Stillman framework, the Court concluded that although the firearm was conscriptive real evidence, its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the reliability of the evidence, the good faith of the police, and the seriousness of the offence.

The appeal from conviction and sentence was dismissed.

Following the release of its judgment regarding a sealing order on search warrant materials, the Court of Appeal was informed that the redacted names were not the subjects of the search warrants, but rather two other individuals mentioned in the materials.

The Attorney General of Canada requested a revised judgment, while the appellant media organization requested an addendum.

The Court agreed with the appellant, releasing an addendum to note the new information and varying the formal order to permit media access to the redacted names.

The appellants, a media organization and a reporter, sought access to the names of individuals whose premises were searched under warrants related to a national security investigation.

The initial judge maintained a sealing order over the names to protect the privacy of innocent persons.

The reviewing judge dismissed an application for certiorari.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found an error of law on the face of the record because the initial judge failed to consider reasonably alternative measures, specifically allowing media access to the names while imposing a publication ban.

The appeal was allowed, and an order was made granting media access to the names subject to a non-publication order.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder following his third trial for the death of the victim.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred in admitting a surreptitiously recorded conversation between himself and the victim, claiming it was conscriptive evidence that should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

He also challenged the trial judge's jury instructions regarding manslaughter, false alibi evidence, and the likely time of death.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the recorded conversation was non-conscriptive and properly admitted, and that the jury instructions did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting post-hypnosis identification evidence, failed to properly instruct the jury on eyewitness identification and alibi evidence, and delivered an unbalanced charge that favoured the Crown.

The Court of Appeal found that while the post-hypnosis evidence was properly admitted, the trial judge committed serious errors in his jury instructions regarding the frailties of the identification evidence and the requirements for finding a fabricated alibi.

Furthermore, the jury charge lacked fairness and balance, compromising the appellant's right to a fair trial.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.