John Patton

The appellant was convicted of attempting to live off the avails of prostitution of a person under 18 and aiding the complainant to engage in prostitution.

At trial, the Crown introduced extensive evidence of extrinsic misconduct, including text messages, online advertisements, and provocative photographs found on the appellant's computer and cell phones, which were not directly connected to the complainant.

The trial judge failed to provide a limiting instruction to the jury warning against propensity reasoning.

The Court of Appeal held that this failure was a reversible error, as there was a real risk the jury would use the evidence to conclude the appellant was a bad person likely to have committed the offences.

The curative proviso was not applied, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal decision affirming his conviction and sentence for assault causing bodily harm, as well as bail pending appeal.

The Crown successfully moved to have the leave application heard concurrently with the bail application.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding that the proposed appeal raised no questions of law alone, lacked significance beyond the specific case, and was without merit.

Consequently, the application for bail pending appeal was also dismissed, as the appellant could not establish that the appeal was not frivolous.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for firearms offences, breaches of weapons prohibitions, and assault on police.

He argued the trial judge made unreasonable findings of fact and misapprehended evidence in rejecting his credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had overwhelming grounds to reject the appellant's evidence and that any misapprehension of evidence related to peripheral matters.

The sentence was also upheld as fit given the aggravating factors and the need for consecutive sentences.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed after the trial judge rejected a joint submission and imposed a significantly higher sentence.

By the time the appeal was heard, the appellant had already been released from custody after serving the sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no reason to address the merits of the appeal in these circumstances and dismissed the appeal as moot.

Appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition order under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant challenged the reasonableness of a detention order and a 50 km radius restriction requiring proximity to the hospital.

The court held that the disposition was supported by the record and reflected the least restrictive disposition agreed to by the parties before the Board.

Although fresh evidence showed the appellant was doing well, that progress was for the next Board hearing and did not render the earlier disposition unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a Disposition Order of the Ontario Review Board.

With the advice of counsel, the appellant chose to proceed with a review of that disposition instead.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot.

The appellant pleaded guilty to numerous serious offences, including armed robberies and break and enters, after voluntarily confessing to police following a religious conversion.

He was sentenced to 22 years consecutive to a 7-year sentence he was already serving.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the sentence was crushing and offended the totality principle, failing to give adequate credit for his voluntary confession and guilty pleas.

The appeal was allowed and the sentences were varied to total approximately 15 years.

The appellant, facing financial difficulties, glued posters to public property as a cry for help.

One poster featured a city councillor's photo and the word 'murder'.

He was convicted of mischief and counselling murder.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside both convictions.

The court held that the minor inconvenience of removing glue did not constitute damage for mischief.

Furthermore, the conviction for counselling murder was unreasonable, as the poster, viewed in context, was a plea for help, not an exhortation to kill, and the appellant lacked the requisite intent.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal decision that upheld his convictions and sentences for impaired driving and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The appellant argued the verdicts were unreasonable, the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his alcohol consumption, and the fines were excessive.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law by the trial judge or the summary conviction appeal judge, noting there was ample evidence to support the conclusion that the appellant's alcohol consumption and its effects were greater than he claimed.

The application for leave to appeal conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted choking and threatening, as well as his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment plus pre-trial custody and 3 years' probation.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and applied uneven scrutiny to the testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons satisfactory and her credibility assessments sound.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was within the proper range for a serious domestic violence offence and adequately reflected principles of deterrence and denunciation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing the trial judge provided inadequate reasons and misapprehended the evidence of the complainant's sister regarding an alleged admission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge adequately scrutinized the sister's testimony and did not assign it undue prominence given the formidable circumstantial evidence of identity.

The court also found no misapprehension of evidence regarding the appellant's acknowledgement of involvement in the altercation.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violence, mental illness, and limited insight.

The Court found the Board reasonably concluded that a conditional discharge could not sufficiently manage the risk of decompensation and that detention was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, firearms offences, and drug trafficking, as well as his sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting the complainant's videotaped statement under the KGB framework and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his lawyer agreed to an Agreed Statement of Facts that undermined his testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the videotaped statement was properly admitted and there was no miscarriage of justice regarding counsel's conduct.

The sentence appeal was allowed to the extent of setting aside the probation order, as a subsequent sentence made the total a penitentiary sentence.

The appellants were convicted of possession of firearms found in a vehicle but acquitted of possessing over-capacity magazines.

They appealed their convictions on multiple grounds, including inconsistent verdicts, improper jury instructions, and Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the verdicts reconcilable and the jury instructions proper.

The court also dismissed one appellant's sentence appeal, upholding his nine-year sentence due to his persistent criminality and prior firearms convictions.

The appellant was convicted of causing a disturbance by using obscene language after yelling obscenities at police officers outside a bar at closing time.

The summary conviction appeal judge upheld the conviction.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapplied the test for a public disturbance.

The court held that the crowd's presence was typical for the area at closing time and that the appellant's actions did not cause an externally manifested disturbance interfering with the ordinary use of the premises.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The appellant challenged both a conviction for sexual assault arising from an incident between inmates in a correctional facility and a subsequent dangerous offender designation resulting in an indeterminate sentence.

The court rejected the argument that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence and held there was no basis to disturb the credibility findings.

The ineffective assistance claim failed because, even assuming incompetence, no prejudice or miscarriage of justice was established.

On sentence, the court held that a long-term offender determination does not displace ordinary sentencing principles for the predicate offence and upheld the finding that the appellant met the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation and could not be managed in the community by less intrusive means.

Gary McHale laid a private information alleging three individuals committed a crime.

A justice of the peace received the information.

Before the pre-enquete hearing under s. 507.1 of the Criminal Code could begin, a Crown Attorney intervened and withdrew the charges.

McHale successfully applied for mandamus in the Superior Court, which directed the pre-enquete to proceed.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Crown's common law authority to withdraw a private information does not crystallize until the justice determines to issue process at the conclusion of the pre-enquete.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention.

He argued the Board failed to meaningfully consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that while the Board failed to properly address the mechanisms for return under the Criminal Code if the appellant breached conditions, its ultimate decision was not unreasonable.

The appellant's lack of insight into his illness, history of non-compliance, and the stressors he would face in the community justified the Board's conclusion that he remained a significant threat to public safety.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing its certiorari application.

The application sought to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge the respondent on a charge of manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no jurisdictional error and agreeing that a reasonable jury properly instructed could not draw a reasonable inference that the respondent committed the offence.

The applicant sought leave to appeal from a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision upholding her conviction for assaulting an elderly patient.

She argued the trial judge erred by taking judicial notice of workplace pressures to explain a Crown witness's delay in reporting the assault, and by failing to properly apply the reasonable doubt standard.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law, noting the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) standard and considered the totality of the evidence.

Leave to appeal was refused.