Kathleen E. Farrell

The offender, Mageed Bedawi Tago, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, careless use of a firearm, and breach of a release order.

The Crown sought a sentence of 22 months imprisonment, while the defence sought 15 months, both accounting for mitigating factors.

The court considered aggravating circumstances, including the public nature of the offence, flight from police, and breach of bail, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, rehabilitative prospects, guilty plea, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to COVID-19.

The court determined a fit sentence of 22 months imprisonment, with 7 months credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 15 months to serve.

Ancillary orders included a two-year probation, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a DNA sample order.

The defendant, Nicholas Walker, was charged with first-degree murder in a retrial following a Court of Appeal order.

The trial proceeded without a jury.

The Crown alleged Walker was the shooter and that the killing was planned and deliberate, stemming from prior acrimony with the victim, Clifenton Ford.

The defence primarily challenged identification and the elements of planned and deliberate murder.

The court, relying on circumstantial evidence including video footage, DNA, and witness testimony, found beyond a reasonable doubt that Walker was the shooter.

The court also concluded that the murder was planned and deliberate, leading to a conviction for first-degree murder.

The applicant brought a motion alleging a breach of their right to a timely trial under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant was charged with sexual assault on February 24, 2019, and was arrested on March 2, 2019.

Trial dates were initially set for April 6-9, 2020, but were adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

New trial dates were set for January 4-7, 2021.

The central issue was how much delay attributable to the pandemic should be deducted from the total delay calculation.

The applicant argued that only three months (the period of court closure) should be deducted, while the Crown argued that the entire nine-month period from the first trial date to the second trial date should be deducted as an exceptional circumstance.

The court found that reasonable measures to mitigate the delay had been taken and deducted nine months from the net delay, resulting in a remaining delay of 12 months and 21 days, below the presumptive 18-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and assault following a trial where identification was the central issue.

The Crown's case rested on the victim's identification of the appellant as one of two assailants and evidence of a conversation at the preliminary inquiry in which the appellant allegedly offered to return or replace stolen property.

The trial judge found the identification evidence had frailties but was entitled to some weight, and when combined with the appellant's statement regarding the stolen property, proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed on two grounds: whether the trial judge erred in giving weight to the identification evidence, and whether the trial judge misapprehended or misused the evidence relating to the conversation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error, material misapprehension of evidence, or unreasonable findings.

This is a motion decision regarding a non-publication order imposed at a bail hearing.

A section 517 Criminal Code non-publication order was in effect, precluding publication of evidence, information, representations, and reasons.

The full decision in the underlying appeal contains information covered by the non-publication order and therefore was not immediately available on the Court of Appeal for Ontario's website pending the cessation of the order.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed on the respondent who had pled guilty to theft, possession of stolen property, flight from police, and two counts of failing to comply with the terms of a recognizance.

The sentencing judge imposed a 6-month sentence to be served consecutively to what the parties believed was a 12-month sentence then being served, for a global sentence of 18 months.

However, the respondent had completed his prior sentence approximately one month before sentencing.

The Crown and respondent agreed that the respondent should have received credit for 32 days of pre-disposition custody on the current charges, which would equate to 48 days with the applicable credit multiplier.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and reduced the sentence accordingly.

The appellant appealed his eight-month sentence for uttering a death threat to a correctional officer.

The appeal raised the issue of collateral immigration consequences that were not considered at sentencing.

As a landed immigrant, a sentence of six months or more would trigger mandatory deportation without a right of appeal under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence regarding the appellant's immigration status and the danger opinion process initiated by the Canadian Border Services Agency.

The court reduced the sentence to six months less one day, finding that while collateral immigration consequences are relevant to sentencing, the sentence must remain proportionate to the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility.

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge imposed on the respondent following conviction for careless use of a firearm under s. 86(3) of the Criminal Code.

The respondent, a licensed gun owner, fired a semi-automatic restricted firearm inside his apartment while intoxicated, discharging three bullets.

One bullet penetrated into a neighboring apartment where a child's toys were stored.

The Court of Appeal found the conditional discharge demonstrably unfit, holding that the sentencing judge erred in placing insufficient weight on general deterrence and denunciation, and in treating intoxication as a mitigating rather than aggravating factor.

The court allowed the appeal and substituted a suspended sentence with probation.

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting death of Kenneth Mark.

The Crown's theory was that the killing was retaliatory in nature, motivated by the victim's breach of the code of silence by identifying the appellant in connection with a prior attempted murder.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: (1) the admissibility of evidence regarding the prior attempted murder and the victim's fear of retaliation; (2) the admissibility of rap lyrics authored by the appellant; and (3) errors in the Crown's closing address regarding the appellant's late disclosure of an alibi and the false testimony of Crown witnesses.

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

The appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault against female massage clients at his massage and yoga studio.

He appealed his convictions on multiple grounds, including that the application judge failed to provide reasons for refusing his severance application, that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence, and that the trial judge erred in relying on the complainant's immediate report to police.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial solely on the basis that the application judge's failure to provide reasons for refusing severance frustrated meaningful appellate review, particularly given the intertwined issues of severance and similar fact evidence.

The appellant appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board dated January 5, 2017, which ordered his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – Provincial Forensic Division.

The appellant did not challenge the Board's finding that he posed a significant threat to public safety but argued that his transfer from CAMH to Waypoint was not necessary and appropriate for managing that risk.

He contended that the Board failed to consider the context of his behaviour and that the announcement of his transfer triggered his deterioration.

He also argued the Board did not give sufficient weight to the disruption of his therapeutic and familial relationships.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and amply supported by evidence.

The appellant was convicted of two offences: wilfully killing a dog without lawful excuse, and wilfully causing unnecessary pain and suffering to a dog by strangulation and suffocation with tape and a chain.

The dog was found dead in the appellant's yard, tethered to a tree with a choke chain and electrical tape wrapped around its muzzle.

The trial judge found that the dog died by strangulation on the choke chain and that the tape was a contributing cause.

The trial judge convicted the appellant based on findings that the appellant knew the dog would struggle and suffer, and was reckless as to whether the dog would die.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the conviction for wilfully killing the dog while upholding the conviction for wilfully causing unnecessary pain and suffering.

The appellant appealed a two-year custodial sentence with probation imposed by the trial judge, arguing that the trial judge erred in principle by declining to impose a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's reasoning or application of relevant sentencing principles and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, incest, and breach of probation.

The victim was his teenage daughter, from whom he had been estranged for many years before reconnecting in 2010.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility assessments and claimed the trial judge applied inconsistent standards of scrutiny to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding the trial judge's conclusions were entitled to deference and were supported by ample evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, as was the abandoned sentence appeal.

The appellant pleaded guilty to criminal harassment involving the surreptitious downloading of the victim's cell phone data and threats to distribute intimate photographs, which he subsequently carried out by sending explicit images to the victim's son.

The trial judge rejected a joint sentence submission of 9-12 months and imposed three years imprisonment.

The appellant appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding the trial judge properly followed the procedure for rejecting a joint submission as established in R. v. Anthony-Cook and that the three-year sentence was justified given the appellant's extensive criminal record, pattern of violence and harassment, and lack of response to prior interventions.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering that a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder remain on the secure forensic unit of a hospital.

The appellant sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Board found the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety based on his lack of insight into his mental illness, likelihood of non-compliance with medication, and psychological testing indicating high risk of psychotic relapse and violent behaviour.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition as reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault for anally penetrating a 19-year-old co-worker at a workplace Christmas party without consent.

The trial judge sentenced him to nine months' imprisonment followed by two years' probation.

The appellant, a permanent resident of Canada, appealed on the basis that the sentence was unfit, particularly given that a sentence of six months or more would trigger immigration consequences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, resulting in loss of the right to appeal a removal order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit and holding that the trial judge did not err in first determining an appropriate sentence and then considering whether immigration consequences warranted reduction.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 20, 2016.

The hospital had recommended a conditional discharge, but the Board imposed a detention order with conditions.

The appellant challenged the Board's decision on multiple grounds, including the refusal to order a conditional discharge and the failure to order a second opinion or independent assessment in light of a potential treatment impasse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's reasoning regarding the appellant's non-compliance with essential drug treatment and the requirement for hospital-approved residence.