Karen Shai

The appellant, who had died prior to the appeal hearing, was convicted on March 16, 2017 by Justice Randall W. Lalande of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Both the Crown and the appellant's counsel agreed that the conviction represented a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal.

Two appellants were convicted following a jury trial for their roles in an armed robbery of a drug dealer's residence in Barrhaven.

During the robbery, one of the perpetrators shot and killed the resident.

The first appellant was convicted of first degree murder; the second appellant was convicted of second degree murder.

On appeal, the first appellant's conviction was upheld.

However, the second appellant's conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered due to errors in the trial judge's jury instructions regarding the mens rea requirement for party liability to murder under section 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant was convicted on an indictment containing ten counts of various offences against three persons, with allegations spanning periods of 8 to 10 years.

On appeal from conviction, the appellant advanced two grounds: first, that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence, subjecting Crown witnesses to a less rigorous standard than defence witnesses; and second, that the trial judge improperly imposed an evidentiary burden on the appellant to explain injuries sustained by one complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds, finding that the trial judge's reasons reflected a cautious, even-handed approach to credibility assessment and that the trial judge's comments regarding the unexplained injuries were merely observations on the state of evidence rather than an improper shift in the burden of proof.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 6, 2017, challenging the Board's addition of a "24-hour-a-day" supervision requirement to a community accommodation condition.

The appellant contended this requirement was not part of the joint submission made at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal, determining that the hearing transcript clearly showed counsel for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health had proposed a housing clause specifically including 24-hour staff supervision, which the appellant's counsel had supported.

The Board's disposition therefore accepted the parties' joint submission rather than departing from it.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a ten-year sentence imposed for manslaughter following her conviction for beating her three-year-old daughter to death.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: inadequate credit for stringent bail conditions, penalization for letters of support from family members, treatment of absence of remorse as an aggravating factor, and failure to consider immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding no error in the trial judge's sentencing decision.

The court emphasized the brutal nature of the killing, the extensive injuries inflicted on the victim, and the absence of meaningful mitigating factors.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on eight charges of serious assault, including physical and sexual abuse.

The trial judge acquitted the respondent on all counts after a nine-day trial.

The Crown argued that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for the acquittals, providing only brief comments on the record that did not explain the decision or permit meaningful appellate review.

The trial judge promised detailed written reasons but never delivered them despite repeated requests over several months.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's brief comments constituted only the "bottom line" decision without any analysis of the evidence, contradictions between witnesses, or identification of specific evidentiary gaps supporting the reasonable doubt conclusion.

The court held that the failure to provide reasons that permit meaningful appellate review constitutes reversible error in law.