Karey Katzsch

The Crown appealed a condition of the respondent's conditional sentence that allowed him to leave the country for employment purposes for 15 days per month.

The Crown conceded the trial judge had jurisdiction under s. 742.3(1)(d) of the Criminal Code to make the order but argued it made the sentence manifestly inadequate or involved an error in principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle given the severe collateral consequences, the stringent house arrest conditions while in Canada, and the fact that the condition was the only viable road to rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with a blood-alcohol level exceeding the legal limit, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting his evidence regarding a bolus drinking defence and in her treatment of an expert report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings were grounded in the evidence and she did not err in concluding the expert's opinion lacked a proper foundation after rejecting the appellant's testimony.

The court also affirmed that R. v. Heideman remains binding authority in Ontario regarding the requirement that an expert's report be probative of the blood-alcohol level at the time of the offence.

The appellant's appeal was dismissed as abandoned after he failed to appear at purge court and failed to provide the required transcripts.

The appellant subsequently appeared and requested that the matter be listed for a further hearing to consider rescinding the dismissal order.

The Court of Appeal heard submissions from the appellant's counsel but found no basis to rescind the order, noting the missed deadline for providing the transcript.

The appeal remained dismissed as abandoned.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision that had overturned the accused's conviction and ordered a new trial.

The lower appellate court had found that the trial judge disregarded a glaring inconsistency in the complainant's evidence and that the loss of a videotape exhibit prejudiced the accused.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had properly considered the inconsistency and the complainant's explanation, which was objectively reasonable.

Furthermore, the loss of the exhibit did not deprive the accused of a ground of appeal.

The conviction was restored.

The Crown appealed a 12-month conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for sexual assault and sexual interference involving two 13-year-old girls.

The respondent, who was in a position of trust, had groomed the complainants over several months.

The Court of Appeal found the conditional sentence demonstrably unfit, failing to adequately reflect the principles of denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children by an adult in a position of trust.

The Court held that a custodial sentence of two years less a day was appropriate.

Applying a flexible approach, the Court granted a 1:1 credit for the 12-month conditional sentence the respondent had already served, resulting in a varied sentence of one year's incarceration.

The appellant appealed her conviction, arguing errors in the trial judge's assessment of her daughter's evidence, the use of a blended voir dire, misapprehension of an officer's evidence regarding a TTC machine, and the lawfulness of her arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that its jurisdiction is limited to errors of law alone and none of the issues raised met this threshold.

The court held that credibility assessments are for the trial judge, the blended voir dire did not cause unfairness, the misapprehended evidence did not affect the conclusions, and the arrest was lawful as the officer found her committing the offence.

The appellant appealed her sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the sentencing judge's discretion.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly instructed himself on the law and that his findings of fact were supported by the evidence, making the convictions reasonable.

The appellant appealed his convictions for carrying ammunition in a careless manner and possession of a restricted firearm, arguing that the police lacked articulable cause to stop his vehicle and that his Charter rights under ss. 9, 10(a), and 10(b) were violated.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the police had articulable cause to stop the vehicle based on a seatbelt infraction and suspicious driving behaviour.

The Court also agreed that although the appellant's s. 10 rights were violated, the real evidence obtained (a firearm and bullets) should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter as its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for historical sexual offences against his two step-daughters.

He argued the trial judge erred by admitting the complainants' testimony as similar fact evidence without prior notice and by failing to specifically instruct the jury on collusion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no prejudice from the lack of notice and concluding the jury was adequately alive to the defence theory of collusion.

The appellant's sentence appeal seeking a conditional sentence was dismissed.

The Crown's cross-appeal was granted, varying the sentence to make one of the indecent assault terms consecutive.