Kaleigh Diane Davidson

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave to appeal on three issues arising from the acquittal of Luis Benevides, a worker charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a workplace accident.

The case addresses the proper application of the directed verdict test, the determination of worker responsibility under the Act, and the use of private business contracts in defining statutory obligations.

The court declined to grant leave on the issue of whether the trial justice erred by considering due diligence and foreseeability at the directed verdict stage.

The respondent mother (RM) brought a motion seeking the return of her child (M.R.) to her temporary care and custody or expanded access.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) opposed, citing COVID-19 restrictions and the mother's current parenting capacity.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on access and the impending closure of M.R.'s foster home.

Considering M.R.'s best interests, including his consistent desire to return to his mother, the CAS's delays in providing mandated services, and the instability of M.R.'s placements, the court ordered M.R.'s reintegration into his mother's full-time care by July 31, 2020, under a supervision order, with virtual access in the interim.

The appellant was convicted of sexual offences against his nephew.

He appealed on the grounds that the trial judge erred in assessing his credibility by relying on his prior convictions for driving-related offences without sufficient detail about the nature, dates, or specifics of those convictions.

The trial judge characterized these convictions as crimes of dishonesty demonstrating callous disregard for the rules.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the manner in which evidence of the appellant's criminal record was adduced at trial deprived the trial judge of the information necessary to make an informed assessment of the impact of those convictions on the appellant's credibility as a witness.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, assault with a weapon, sexual interference, three counts of sexual assault, uttering a threat, two counts of failing to comply with a recognisance, and failure to comply with probation.

The charges stemmed from allegations made by three of the appellant's children, all of whom had cognitive deficits.

The trial judge convicted the appellant of all charges except one count of assault causing bodily harm.

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of material inconsistencies in witness evidence and inadequate reasons, and also sought leave to appeal his sentence of 10 years' incarceration less 34 months of pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, granted leave to appeal sentence, and allowed the sentence appeal to provide additional credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of oxycodone for the purposes of trafficking and possession of cocaine, as well as his sentence.

The Court of Appeal granted the appeal from the trafficking conviction and substituted a conviction for simple possession of oxycodone.

The appeal from the cocaine possession conviction was dismissed.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and a sentence of time served was substituted in place of the original sentence.