Karen M. Weiler

The appellant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while impaired.

His appeal to the Summary Conviction Appeal Court was dismissed.

He sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing the trial judge applied the wrong test and the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly assessed the evidence of impairment, including the appellant's high rate of speed, abrupt stop, and slurred speech, and that the verdict was not unreasonable.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault by a jury, arguing the verdict was compromised because the jury was not informed of sequestration until five hours into deliberations, and because they returned mixed verdicts on related charges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable possibility of coercion from the delayed sequestration notice and concluding the verdicts were not irreconcilable.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's instruction on the burden of proof.

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of his wife.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, alleging the appellant raped and murdered the deceased.

On appeal, the appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable based on medical evidence regarding the time of death, and challenged the admissibility of expert evidence concerning genital injuries and a blood letter written in Chinese characters.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the verdict was reasonable as the medical evidence did not exonerate the appellant, and the expert evidence was properly admitted.

The appellant was convicted of tax evasion under s. 239(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act and fined $29,210.

He appealed his conviction, arguing he lacked the necessary mens rea because he honestly believed he was a 'natural person of commoner status' not subject to the Act, and that his representation by an agent at trial caused a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a mistaken belief about the application of a statute is a mistake of law that does not negate mens rea.

The court also found no miscarriage of justice regarding his representation, as he made an informed choice and there was no evidence that a lawyer would have changed the outcome.

The respondents failed to pay property taxes on their family farm, leading the appellant township to initiate a tax sale under the Municipal Tax Sales Act.

After tenders were opened but before the tax deed was registered, the respondents offered to pay the full cancellation price.

The municipal treasurer refused, believing she had no discretion to cancel the sale once tenders were opened.

The application judge cancelled the tax sale, finding the treasurer failed to exercise her discretion under s. 12(6) of the Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that a municipal treasurer retains the discretion to cancel a tax sale at any time up to the registration of the tax deed.

The appellants appealed a decision granting the respondents relief from forfeiture and cancelling a municipal tax sale of their farm.

The respondents had failed to pay property taxes, and the township initiated a tax sale.

After tenders were opened but before the sale was finalized, the respondents offered to pay the full cancellation price.

The municipal treasurer refused, believing she had no discretion to cancel the sale once tenders were opened.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under subsection 12(6) of the Municipal Tax Sales Act, the treasurer retains the discretion to cancel a tax sale at any time up to the registration of the tax deed.

The appellants were charged with cruelty to animals after a search of their property under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (OSPCAA) resulted in the seizure of numerous animals.

The trial judge acquitted the appellants, finding the search warrant invalid because it authorized multiple officers to enter, which she held violated the OSPCAA.

On appeal, the Summary Conviction Appeal Court applied the Interpretation Act to find that the singular wording in the OSPCAA included the plural, validating the warrant and ordering a new trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that the Interpretation Act applied, the search was reasonable, and the presence of police officers to keep the peace did not violate the appellants' Charter rights.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching involving a nine-year-old complainant.

He argued that the trial judge erred in permitting the complainant to testify under oath, that the verdict was unreasonable, and that the evidence did not support a conviction under section 152 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's inquiry into the complainant's understanding of an oath, as no objections were raised at trial.

The court also held that the verdict was reasonable and that section 152, interpreted purposively, encompasses a request by an accused to permit him to touch a complainant's private parts.

The appellant appealed his convictions for unlawful confinement and assault following a judge-alone trial.

The trial judge's decision relied heavily on credibility assessments, ultimately rejecting the appellant's exculpatory evidence.

In doing so, the trial judge misapprehended a crucial piece of the appellant's testimony regarding the complainant's emotional state.

The Court of Appeal applied the test from R. v. Morrissey, finding that the misapprehended evidence played an essential part in the trial judge's reasoning process and adverse credibility finding.

Consequently, the conviction was not based exclusively on the evidence, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of trafficking.

The Crown conceded that the appeal regarding the proceeds of trafficking should be allowed, and an acquittal was entered on that count.

On the remaining counts, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing police identification evidence, including a 'drive-by' identification.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in law, did not give improper weight to the police officers' evidence, and properly relied on substantial corroborating evidence.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision refusing to decide a certiorari application regarding an interlocutory order for severance made by a Justice of the Peace.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that certiorari should not substitute for the lack of a statutory appeal from an interlocutory order.

The Court also found the anticipatory Charter breach claim premature, noting the trial judge is best positioned to decide severance.

The appellant appealed from a Summary Conviction Appeal Judge's decision upholding his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the SCAJ's decision regarding conviction, as the trial judge properly assessed the complainant's evidence and gave adequate reasons.

On sentence, the Crown conceded the SCAJ erred in imposing a $2,000 fine alongside custody and probation, and in imposing a DNA order when the Crown had not appealed the trial judge's refusal to make one.

The fine and DNA order were struck, but the 100-hour community service order was upheld.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, and the appeal as to sentence was allowed in part.

The appellant sought to appeal a decision on an interlocutory application in a criminal proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there is no provision in the Criminal Code that permits appellate review of such a decision.

The appellant, a freelance author, wrote articles published in The Globe and Mail.

The newspaper subsequently placed these articles in electronic databases (Info Globe Online, CPI.Q, and CD-ROM).

The appellant sued for copyright infringement.

The Court of Appeal held that the databases did not constitute a 'newspaper or similar periodical' and did not reproduce a substantial part of the newspaper's collective work.

The court also found that the oral licence granted by the appellant did not convey a proprietary interest and thus did not need to be in writing.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Crown failed to explicitly establish that the police officer who administered the breath test was a qualified technician.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was open to the trial judge to infer the officer's designation from her testimony, her official capacity, and the certificate she produced, which created a rebuttable presumption that was not challenged.

The appellants were convicted of second degree murder for stabbing a plainclothes police officer to steal his vehicle.

They appealed their convictions, arguing that the Crown's failure to disclose that two other surveillance officers were drinking outside the jurisdiction during the incident violated their right to full disclosure and constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the undisclosed information would not have affected the trial's fairness or the credibility of the responding officer.

The Court also dismissed the sentence appeals, upholding parole ineligibility periods of 16 and 18 years due to the need to denounce the murder of an on-duty police officer and the appellants' violent criminal records.

Following the dismissal of two related appeals brought by groups of developers, the successful municipal respondents sought costs.

The City of Mississauga sought partial indemnity costs of $70,379.25, while the Region of Halton and City of Burlington sought full indemnity costs of approximately $176,000.

The Court of Appeal determined that costs should follow the event on a partial indemnity scale.

Considering the complexity of the issues, the prior proceedings before the Ontario Municipal Board and Divisional Court, and the consolidated hearing, the court awarded $50,000 to Mississauga and $50,000 to Halton and Burlington.

The appellant appealed the conditions of his one-year conditional sentence and three-year probation order for assault causing bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal upheld the strict house arrest condition but found the restriction on family visits unreasonable, varying it to allow weekend visits with his daughter.

The court also varied the probation order to remove several conditions, including the requirement to abstain from alcohol.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant appealed his conviction and 18-month sentence for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing to declare a mistrial based on an alleged breach of his section 14 Charter right to an interpreter, and that the trial judge overemphasized general deterrence in sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably gave no weight to a hearsay affidavit regarding the interpreter issue, and that the sentence was within the appropriate range with no error in principle.

The appellant, a young person, appealed his convictions for robbery, extortion, assault, and uttering threats.

He argued the trial judge failed to properly apply the W.(D.) framework, treated the case as a credibility contest, and misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly instructed himself on the burden of proof, did not decide the case wholly on demeanour, and reasonably relied on corroborating evidence.

The verdict was found not to be unreasonable.