Karen M. Weiler

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for drug-related offences.

He argued that his rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter were violated during two separate incidents.

For the first incident, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of no Charter breach, citing the cumulative effect of informant information and police observations, including an envelope from a hydroponics store and a constantly ringing cell phone.

For the second incident, the Court found no error in the trial judge's section 24(2) analysis admitting the evidence despite an assumed section 8 breach.

The Court also upheld the finding that the appellant had control of the drugs.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the sentences imposed on three respondents.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentences for Robert Thiffeault Jr. and Robert Thiffeault Sr. given their minor involvement and mitigating factors.

For Donald Harrison, the Court found the trial judge erred as his role was more significant and warranted a reformatory sentence.

However, based on fresh evidence and his compliance with his conditional sentence, the Court declined to incarcerate him.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for unlawful confinement and assault causing bodily harm.

He argued the trial judge applied unequal scrutiny to the evidence and erred in admitting his statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed the evidence, including the complainant's injuries and the improbability of the appellant's version of events.

The court also noted that the appellant's statement was exculpatory and its admission did not affect the outcome.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and his 12-month sentence.

He argued the trial judge failed to adequately address contradictions in evidence and failed to give proper reasons for credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient and complied with the standard for adequacy of reasons.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as a 12-month sentence for sexual assault involving a minor child and a breach of trust was not manifestly unfit.

The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted murder and related offences arising from a shooting in a high school gymnasium, as well as his 18-year sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing expert evidence on eyewitness identification, admitting in-dock identification, and in the jury instructions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 18-year sentence was manifestly fit given the aggravating factors, including the appellant's record and the danger posed to bystanders.

The appellant appealed his convictions for prostitution-related offences, assault, and sexual assault, as well as his designation as a long-term offender and the ten-year supervision order.

He raised evidentiary issues regarding a prior consistent statement and collateral evidence of the complainant's subsequent conduct, and argued the jury charge was inadequate and lacked a Vetrovec warning.

He also challenged the validity of the Attorney General's consent for the long-term offender application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or the long-term offender proceedings.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board misunderstood the terms of a joint recommendation regarding his community and grounds supervision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the record did not support the appellant's contention and that the Board gave careful reasons for adding restrictions to his privileges.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision quashing a by-law that prohibited commercial parking lots and private parking enforcement agencies from issuing private parking tickets.

The application judge had found the by-law ultra vires, reasoning that trespassers are not 'consumers' under the consumer protection licensing power in s. 150(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge applied an overly restrictive interpretation of 'consumer protection'.

Applying a broad and purposive approach, the Court found that 'consumer' includes any person with whom a licensed business transacts, engages, or deals directly, including alleged trespassers from whom the business seeks to extract payment.

The City of Toronto appealed a declaration that its 2004 Amending By-Law, which prohibited commercial parking lots from issuing private parking tickets for unauthorized parking, did not apply to Imperial Parking Canada Corporation (Impark).

Impark argued that its signage created a contract whereby it consented to parking even if proper advance payment was not made, subject to a higher daily rate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that Impark's signs explicitly offered consensual parking, meaning the by-law, which only applied to vehicles parked without consent, did not apply to Impark's fee collection activities.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action for injurious falsehood as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant knew all relevant facts triggering the limitation period more than two years before commencing the action, as he had already suffered damages in the form of professional time spent refuting the allegations.

The appeal was dismissed, but the motion costs were corrected due to an addition error.

Following an appeal, the parties made written submissions regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the respondent's submissions and awarded her costs of the appeal fixed at $1,621.08, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellants, directors of a preservation society, appealed a non-party costs award of $105,852.14 made against them personally following an unsuccessful application regarding the use of church lands and trust funds.

The Court of Appeal found that while the application judge did not err in concluding the litigation was not public interest litigation, he erred in awarding costs personally against the directors.

The Court held that the directors did not stand to gain personally, were not acting to vindicate a private interest, and did not receive adequate warning that costs would be sought against them personally.

The appeal was allowed and the personal costs order was set aside.

On a ministerial review reference treated as a conviction appeal, the court admitted fresh forensic pathology and archival evidence undermining the reliability of the original time-of-death evidence that had been central to the Crown’s theory of exclusive opportunity.

Applying the fresh evidence framework, the court held that the conviction, as affirmed on the earlier reference, could no longer stand and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

At the remedial stage, the court undertook an extensive review of the historical record, expert evidence, archival material, and the practical impossibility of a retrial.

Although an acquittal was not the only conceivable verdict, the court concluded that an acquittal was clearly the more likely result at a hypothetical new trial and entered that remedy.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement awarding costs to the respondent, Leather Treaty, fixed in the amount of $15,000 all inclusive.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that even if the appeal was not moot, the Board's disposition was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The accused was acquitted of murder following a stabbing at a nightclub.

At trial, evidence was admitted that the deceased had 39 ecstasy pills sewn into his underwear, on the condition that the defence would not use it to suggest the deceased had a violent disposition.

However, in his closing address, defence counsel rhetorically asked the jury to link the drugs to violence, implying the deceased was the aggressor.

The trial judge refused the Crown's request for a corrective instruction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred in failing to correct the impermissible propensity reasoning invited by defence counsel.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for multiple offences, including procuring prostitution, assault, and extortion.

He argued the trial judge's jury charge was deficient for failing to include a Vetrovec warning, distinguish between credibility and reliability, and instruct on all constituent elements of the offences.

The Court of Appeal found the charge deficient but concluded it did not amount to reversible error for most counts, as the case rested simply on the complainant's credibility.

However, the court substituted a conviction for common assault in place of assault with a weapon because the trial judge failed to specify the weapon in the charge.

The total sentence of eight years was upheld, though the individual sentences were varied to correct an unlawful six-year concurrent sentence for common assault.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment with a 15-year period of parole ineligibility.

He argued the trial judge erred by excluding evidence of the deceased's propensity for violence, misdirecting the jury on after-the-fact conduct regarding intent, and misdirecting the jury on self-defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly considered the appellant's prior record, the senseless nature of the killing, and the jury's recommendation.

The appellant appealed a term of his conditional sentence that prohibited him from working outside his home for the first ten months.

Although the Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's original conditions, it admitted fresh evidence regarding a tragic event involving the appellant's daughter and his worsening medical condition.

The Court allowed the appeal and varied the condition to permit the appellant to seek and maintain employment, other than self-employment, at a place approved by his supervisor.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

Based on a concession by the Crown, which the Court of Appeal found to be proper and correct, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.