Kathryn N. Feldman

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter after fatally stabbing the deceased in the appellant's apartment.

At trial, the appellant claimed self-defence.

The trial judge instructed the jury that they could consider the appellant's failure to retreat from his own home when assessing the reasonableness of his actions.

The Court of Appeal held that this was an error in law, as there is no duty to retreat from one's own home when attacked, nor is it a factor for the jury to consider under section 34(2) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter after striking the victim in the head with a metal bar during an altercation in a truck.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to correct a misstatement in the Crown's closing address regarding when certain photographs of the truck's interior were taken, and by accepting the jury's verdict before answering a question the jury had asked about those photographs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the misstatement did not require a correcting instruction and that the trial judge acted appropriately in accepting the verdict with the agreement of counsel.

The youth appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting a five-year-old child.

At trial, credibility was the central issue, and the appellant denied the allegations.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, finding the complainant's evidence compelling and rejecting the appellant's denial as one of convenience.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons inadequate.

The reasons failed to explain how the trial judge reconciled problems with the complainant's evidence or why the appellant's evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in a medium secure unit.

The appellant argued that the disposition was unreasonable, that the Board failed to consider the statutory factors, that the reasons were inadequate, and that a treatment impasse had been reached.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable given the significant escalation in the appellant's aggressive and threatening behaviour and the expert evidence supporting the need for a higher security level.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing a Letter of Request (LOR) from a US District Court seeking document production and examination of representatives in relation to a US antitrust class action.

The appellant argued the application judge failed to exercise independent discretion and merely accepted the LOR at face value.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge properly applied the Friction Division Products criteria, sought clarification from the US judge, and correctly concluded that the requested information was relevant, necessary, and not otherwise obtainable.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding child and spousal support following the breakdown of a 22-year relationship.

The trial judge imputed minimum wage income to the respondent, who had taken voluntary early retirement, and declined to order lump sum spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decisions on imputed income and lump sum support, finding no error in principle.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to eliminate the appellant's obligation to pay retroactive child support, to order ongoing periodic spousal support, and to set aside the trial costs award.

The appellant appealed his six-year sentence for two counts of dangerous driving causing death and one count of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

He argued the sentence was outside the acceptable range of two to five years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the trend toward more severe sentences for these offences to address general deterrence and protection of the public.

The court found the sentence fit given the appellant's aggressive driving, grossly unsafe manoeuvring, and lengthy driving record.

The appellant newspaper intervened in a civil action to challenge an ex parte publication ban and sealing order obtained by a non-party regarding his personal health information.

The motion judge granted the non-party an indefinite publication ban and awarded full indemnity costs against the newspaper.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision to award costs against the intervenor, finding it was motivated partly by business interests and the information was highly personal.

However, the Court set aside the full indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the newspaper, and substituted an award of partial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed a conviction for possession of child pornography found on a shared home computer, arguing that the trial judge failed to explain why he accepted the estranged spouse’s evidence and rejected the appellant’s denial.

The court held that, in a case turning on credibility and conflicting evidence about who was responsible for the material, the reasons did not adequately reconcile significant contradictions or explain why no reasonable doubt remained.

The court also identified material misapprehensions of the forensic and testimonial evidence.

Applying the functional approach to sufficiency of reasons, the court concluded that meaningful appellate review was foreclosed and the verdict was unsafe.

The young person appealed her conviction and sentence for robbery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's use of after-the-fact conduct evidence.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed.

The trial judge had imposed a sentence exceeding the recommendations of both the Crown and defence.

The Court found the sentence excessive and reduced it to time served (two-and-a-half months) while maintaining the $350 restitution order.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, use of an imitation firearm, break and enter, and breach of probation, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing eyewitness identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge carefully considered the evidence and was entitled to conclude that the circumstantial evidence, including descriptions of clothing and the discovery of a replica gun, proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine.

The Crown conceded that the guilty verdict was unreasonable.

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

The court noted it could not address the sentence for a separate marijuana possession conviction as leave to appeal sentence was not sought.

The appellant appealed his convictions for refusal to take a breathalyzer test and impaired driving.

He argued that his section 10(b) Charter rights were breached when he was denied a second phone call to his lawyer, and that the trial judge erred in finding impairment and drawing an inference under section 258(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant was not asking to speak to counsel for further advice, and holding there was ample evidence of impairment.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's weighing of the evidence or application of the burden of proof.

The court also found the sentence imposed reflected no error in principle and fell within the appropriate range.

The appeal from conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The appellant, a high school teacher, appealed his conviction for touching a student for a sexual purpose.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility and reliability, particularly after finding certain events could not have occurred as described.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the W.D. principle and reasonably relied on overwhelming independent evidence, including graphic electronic messages and notes, to support the conviction.

The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted choking and threatening, as well as his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment plus pre-trial custody and 3 years' probation.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and applied uneven scrutiny to the testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons satisfactory and her credibility assessments sound.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was within the proper range for a serious domestic violence offence and adequately reflected principles of deterrence and denunciation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to give a no-probative value instruction regarding his attempted suicide, by conducting a lengthy review of evidence, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding a strong case of planning and deliberation based on handwritten notes and the appellant's actions prior to the murder.

The court noted defence counsel had used the attempted suicide evidence as part of the defence theory and found no error in the trial judge's review of the evidence.

The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit arson and second degree murder after a co-conspirator died in an explosion while setting fire to a commercial building for insurance fraud.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in her treatment of Vetrovec witnesses, admitted improper discreditable conduct evidence, and rendered an unreasonable verdict on the murder charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the evidentiary grounds but found the murder conviction unreasonable, as the evidence did not establish the appellant had subjective foresight of the likelihood of death.

The court substituted a conviction for manslaughter and reduced the sentence for conspiracy to commit arson from ten years to six years to respect the parity principle.

The appellant was convicted of careless storage of a firearm and ammunition after police, assisting sheriff's officers with an eviction, opened gun cases found in the apartment without a warrant.

The summary conviction appeal court upheld the convictions.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the appellant retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in his home and belongings despite the eviction order.

The court held that the police breached s. 8 of the Charter by opening the gun cases without a warrant or exigent circumstances.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, allowed the appeal, and entered acquittals.

The plaintiff's action arising from a motor vehicle accident was administratively dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14.

The status notice and dismissal order were sent to the plaintiff's former counsel due to a court error, despite a notice of change of solicitor having been filed.

The motion judge dismissed the plaintiff's motion to set aside the dismissal, finding unexplained delay, prejudice to the defendants, and relying on the principle of finality.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors in her assessment of the delay, prejudice, and finality, particularly given the defendants' continued participation in discoveries for a related action.