John Scott Cowan

The appellant sought to strike his guilty plea to possession of a loaded restricted firearm, alleging material non-disclosure.

The Crown had requested an adjournment of a Charter motion, citing a police officer's medical unavailability.

Fresh evidence revealed the officer was facing criminal charges, which were not disclosed to the defence.

The appellant asserted he would not have pleaded guilty if aware of these charges.

The Crown conceded the fresh evidence's admissibility, the material non-disclosure, and that it likely influenced the plea.

The Court of Appeal accepted these concessions, allowed the appeal, set aside the guilty plea, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant, Everton Ambrose, appealed his conviction and sentence arising from a drive-by shooting.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the trial judge's reasons carefully reviewed the evidence and amply supported the conclusion that the appellant was either the shooter or a party to the offence.

The court found no error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence or in the fitness and reasonableness of the sentence imposed.

Both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal were dismissed.

The appellant, P.M., sought leave to appeal a three-year sentence for sexual assault, six months consecutive for assault, and four months concurrent for uttering a threat, imposed in absentia by the Superior Court of Justice.

The appeal raised the issue of conflicting sentencing ranges for sexual assault involving intimate partners versus non-intimate partners (R. v. Smith vs. R. v. Bradley).

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's sentence was fit and proportionate, even assuming an error in identifying the precise sentencing range, as appellate intervention is only warranted if the sentence is demonstrably unfit.

The Court declined to resolve the conflict in sentencing ranges for the purpose of this appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, B.J., applied for a bail review after being detained on tertiary grounds for serious drug trafficking and criminal organization charges.

The court found that the inclusion of electronic monitoring in the proposed release plan and the public health implications of the COVID-19 pandemic constituted material changes in circumstances, triggering jurisdiction for review.

The court was satisfied that the stringent release plan, including sureties, house arrest, and electronic monitoring, adequately addressed secondary ground concerns.

Considering the potential for lengthy pre-trial custody due to pandemic-related court delays and the accused's heightened health risk, the court concluded that continued detention was not justified on tertiary grounds.

B.J. was released on strict conditions.

The defendant, charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, applied to re-open a voir dire concerning the reasonable and probable grounds for her arrest and sought disclosure of a Confidential Informant's (CI) handler notes.

The application was based on recently disclosed CI notes and arguments regarding CI handling protocols and the CI's status as a material witness.

The court dismissed the application, finding no new significant evidence to cast doubt on the CI's reliability or to justify re-opening the voir dire or disclosing the CI's identity under the innocence at stake exception.