Karen Papadopoulos

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for second-degree murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that renewed his conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board's finding that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant posed a significant threat due to the risk of non-compliance with his medication if discharged absolutely without community monitoring.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder, brought a motion within his appeal for an order directing investigating officers and a forensic scientist to attend for cross-examination.

He sought to support a fresh evidence application regarding DNA records, alleging that the National DNA Data Bank possessed undisclosed original DNA profile data.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable possibility that further relevant material existed, as required by the Trotta and Chaplin tests.

The applicant, charged with second degree murder, sought a review of his detention order under s. 680(1) of the Criminal Code.

The detention order had been upheld by the trial judge under s. 523(2)(a) before a mistrial was declared due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown challenged the court's jurisdiction to hear the review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that s. 680(1) does not confer jurisdiction to review a bail decision made by a trial judge under s. 523(2)(a).

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior discreditable conduct involving other neighbours regarding noise complaints.

The appellant had strangled and slit the throat and wrists of his neighbour following a dispute over alleged noise from her unit.

The trial judge admitted evidence of the appellant's aggressive behaviour toward other neighbours over noise complaints to establish his state of mind and provide context for the interaction with the victim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's careful balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect.

The appellant appealed her convictions for counselling murder, criminal harassment, and breaching court orders arising from a prolonged campaign of harassment against her former domestic partner and his new wife.

The trial judge found that the appellant had sought to incite her brother and ex-husband to murder her former partner by falsely claiming he had sexually assaulted her daughter.

The Court of Appeal upheld all convictions and the sentence of 10 years effective on the counselling murder charge, finding no legal error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, evidentiary rulings, or sentencing analysis.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder in the death of a sex-trade worker.

The Crown's case was based on circumstantial evidence including DNA evidence, cell phone records, security footage, and evidence of post-offence conduct.

The trial judge sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment with 25 years of parole ineligibility.

On appeal, the appellant challenged four aspects of the trial judge's charge to the jury: the characterization of the cause of death as strangulation, instructions on non-fatal injuries, examples of circumstantial evidence, and instructions on post-offence conduct.

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

The accused was found in possession of a loaded handgun, ammunition and cocaine when stopped by police while walking along a street late at night.

The trial judge found that several of the accused's constitutional rights were infringed by police but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, convicting the accused of various firearms offences and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

A majority of the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge committed reversible error in assessing the seriousness of the Charter-infringing police conduct, excluded the evidence and entered acquittals.

The Supreme Court of Canada, by majority, allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, substantially for the reasons of the dissenting judge at the Court of Appeal, while leaving open the question of whether remedies other than exclusion of evidence may be available under s. 24(1) of the Charter when dealing with s. 24(2).

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his application for certiorari to quash decisions by two Justices of the Peace who refused to issue process on private informations for fraud under $5,000.

The appellant had previously commenced a civil action against the same individuals, which was dismissed and settled.

The Justices of the Peace declined to issue process on various grounds, including lack of prima facie case, expiration of limitation periods, and absence of reasonable prospect of conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no jurisdictional error by either Justice of the Peace and noting that the Crown would have been duty-bound to withdraw any charges issued.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder for stabbing and killing an 18-year-old victim following a brief altercation.

The trial judge imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with parole ineligibility of 13 years.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on three grounds: failure to leave the defence of provocation with the jury, failure to provide a rolled-up charge incorporating self-defence, provocation, and intoxication, and alleged imbalance in the jury charge.

The appellant also challenged the sentence on three grounds: erroneous finding that the appellant armed himself after being attacked, failure to treat provocation and self-defence as mitigating, and improper focus on lack of remorse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld both the conviction and sentence.

The appellant, a leader of the Galloway Boyz gang, appealed his convictions for attempted murder and firearms offences arising from a drive-by shooting in April 2004.

The Crown conceded that warrantless wiretap evidence obtained under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code breached the appellant's section 8 Charter rights.

The sole issue was whether the intercepted communications should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The motion judge admitted the evidence, finding that exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Court of Appeal conducted a fresh section 24(2) analysis under the Grant framework and upheld the admission of the evidence, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder in the shooting death of a drug dealer during a robbery.

The trial judge sentenced him to life imprisonment with parole ineligibility after 16 years.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction on five grounds: (1) the admissibility of expert opinion evidence regarding cellphone usage patterns by drug traffickers; (2) the trial judge's refusal to admit prior out-of-court statements; (3) jury instructions cautioning the jury to consider the appellant's testimony with particular care; (4) jury instructions on eyewitness identification evidence; and (5) the trial judge's failure to properly instruct the jury on the significance of non-identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal found merit in several grounds of appeal, particularly regarding the cellphone evidence, jury instructions on the appellant's alibi testimony, and instructions on eyewitness non-identification evidence.

The court determined that the cumulative effect of these errors was not harmless and warranted a new trial.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder in the stabbing death of Nighisti Semret in downtown Toronto on October 23, 2012.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: (1) that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that after-the-fact conduct had no probative value in distinguishing between levels of culpability; (2) that the trial judge failed to provide an O'Connor instruction regarding the appellant's false statements to police and medical personnel; and (3) that evidence of the appellant's trip to Germany should not have been admitted.

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

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder arising from a home invasion robbery of a drug dealer during which the victim was fatally stabbed.

The Crown's case relied heavily on testimony from the appellant's accomplice who pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal concerning jury instructions: the failure to give a Vetrovec warning, the failure to give a W.(D.) instruction, the instruction on common purpose liability, and improper re-examination.

The appellant also appealed his sentence of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 22 years.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that defence counsel's tactical decisions at trial were reasonable and that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in jury instructions.

Three appellants were convicted of first degree murder, attempted murder, and committing those offences for the benefit of a criminal organization arising from a drive-by shooting in Toronto.

The Crown's case relied heavily on testimony from two gang members who testified the appellants confessed to the shooting.

The appellants challenged numerous aspects of the trial including jury selection procedures, joinder of counts, admission of bad character evidence, ballistics evidence, jury instructions on Vetrovec witnesses, and alleged Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of Atkins and Riley but allowed Wisdom's appeal, finding the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of an attempted theft four months after the shooting, which had minimal probative value but significant prejudicial effect.

The Crown appealed a conviction entered by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the Summary Conviction Appeal Court judge properly assessed threshold reliability of the complainant's evidence, particularly in light of the complainant's developmental and psychological circumstances.

The court found that the Summary Conviction Appeal Court judge properly deferred to the trial judge's findings and was entitled to review the entirety of the evidence, including expert evidence and inconsistent statements, when assessing threshold reliability.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, two brothers, were involved in an altercation at a cottage party.

Jordan punched the victim in the eye, causing permanent blindness, and Ryan subsequently kicked and punched the victim while he was on the ground.

Jordan was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment, while Ryan was convicted of the included offence of common assault and received a suspended sentence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed both conviction appeals, finding that the trial judge reasonably rejected Jordan's self-defence claim and correctly treated Ryan's assault as part of the same transaction.

However, the Court allowed Jordan's sentence appeal, reducing his sentence to nine months' incarceration because the trial judge failed to apply the restraint principle for young first offenders.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and administering a stupefying drug, as well as his 9-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the circumstantial evidence or credibility, and noting that claims for a stay of proceedings based on delay and lost evidence were not properly advanced at trial.

The sentence appeal was allowed only to the extent of increasing the credit for pre-trial custody and release, reducing the net sentence to 7 years and 357 days.

The Crown sought an extension of time, an order dispensing with notice, and an order for substituted service of a notice of appeal regarding a summary conviction appeal decision.

The respondent had been acquitted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and the Crown had been unable to serve him with the initial appeal or the subsequent appeal of the application judge's refusal to order substituted service.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time and dispensed with notice, but dismissed the request for substituted service at this stage, directing the Crown to make further efforts at personal service during the extended time period.

The appellant appealed his convictions for multiple offences, including attempted murder and forcible confinement, arising from the abduction of the complainant at gunpoint.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to consider the potential contamination of the complainant's identification evidence from a YouTube video and by misapprehending evidence regarding the attempted murder charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was alive to the potential contamination issue and properly relied on the extensive one-on-one time the complainant spent with the appellant.

The Court also held that the trial judge reasonably concluded, based on an objective assessment of the evidence, that the appellant pointed an operable firearm at the complainant's head and pulled the trigger with the expectation of shooting her.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter for the death of his severely disabled brother, whom he had removed from a care facility to misappropriate his disability cheques.

The victim died from starvation and neglect after eight years of abuse.

The trial judge imposed a 20-year sentence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentence was beyond the established range and that the trial judge improperly treated a lack of remorse as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, finding the horrific aggravating circumstances justified a sentence outside the usual range.

However, the appeal was allowed solely to apply enhanced pre-sentence custody credit under Summers, reducing the net sentence to 14 years and 11 months.