Ken R. Lockhart

The appellants, David Hui and Musab Saboon, appealed their convictions for kidnapping and first-degree murder of Lee Chiodo, as well as Hui's sentence for kidnapping.

Both were convicted after a trial by judge alone and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's credibility and reliability analysis of Marshall Hardy-Fox, a Vetrovec witness whose evidence was key to the convictions.

The appellants also argued the trial judge failed to apply the proper legal test for assessing credibility and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of Hardy-Fox's evidence, proper application of the credibility test, and adequate reasons.

The court also dismissed Hui's sentence appeal based on the parity principle.

The appellant, Seyed Amir Yaghoubi-Araghi, appealed his convictions and sentence for firearm and drug offences following a R.I.D.E. stop, police pursuit, and search that uncovered a handgun and methamphetamine.

He argued that the trial judge erred in failing to exclude the evidence due to breaches of his rights under section 10(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge properly recognized the seriousness of the Charter breaches, the evidence was lawfully obtained and the balancing of factors under R. v. Grant did not warrant exclusion.

The conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant sought to overturn his conviction, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence concerning the number of intruders and the appellant's vehicle parking location.

The Court of Appeal found no misapprehension of evidence and affirmed that the trial judge's findings were available on the record.

The court further held that even if any misapprehension occurred, it did not play an essential part in the reasoning process leading to conviction, as required by the Morrissey and Lohrer tests.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and voyeurism and appealed his convictions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence.

The court upheld the trial judge's rejection of the appellant's testimony, finding it illogical and inconsistent, consistent with the principles in R. v. W.(D.).

The court also rejected the appellant's submissions regarding an alleged mistaken inference about the complainant's age and its relation to consciousness of guilt, and a ground concerning the materiality of a photograph's date.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The defendant, Tyler Willan, was charged with arson as an aider under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code, for assisting in the burning of a Honda Accord used in a murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including video chronology of the Honda and Willan's Outlander, the purchase of gas in a Jerry Can, and the movements of the alleged perpetrators (Male 1 and Male 2).

The court found that Male 1 and Male 2 committed arson by intentionally burning the Honda, which was not wholly owned by them, to destroy evidence related to a murder.

The court concluded that Willan aided the arson by driving Male 1 and Male 2 from the burn site back to Oshawa, having known about the Jerry Can and the purpose of the trip.

Willan was found guilty.

Abdirashid Adam was found guilty of manslaughter after a jury trial for the shooting death of Jovanh McKnollys.

The court determined the appropriate sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the planned confrontation, the use of a concealed, loaded firearm with an obliterated serial number, and the devastating impact on the victim's family.

Mitigating factors included the offender's educational and employment history, good rehabilitative prospects, genuine remorse, harsh pre-sentence detention conditions, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on his life experiences, particularly his decision to carry a firearm for safety.

The court emphasized that while social context evidence could mitigate the offender's responsibility, it did not mitigate the seriousness of the offence.

Deterrence and denunciation were deemed paramount.

The Crown sought 11 years, and the defence sought 5 years.

The accused, Libsom Hibab, was charged with sexual assault as a party to the offence under s. 272(1)(d) of the Criminal Code.

The complainant alleged that Hibab digitally penetrated her vagina while another individual, Tinsay, restrained her.

Hibab admitted to some sexual touching but claimed it was consensual and stopped when asked, and that Tinsay's actions were separate and unknown to him.

The court rejected Hibab's testimony, finding it contrived and unbelievable, particularly his explanation for the complainant's injuries.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, supported by physical injuries and her distressed demeanour during the 911 call.

Applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.), the court found the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, convicting Hibab as charged.

The appellant, Xiu Jin Teng, appealed her conviction for first-degree murder and her sentence.

The primary ground of appeal was the trial judge's dismissal of her Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel, which the trial judge found was not bona fide but an attempt to delay the trial.

Other grounds included Charter breaches (s. 11(b) right to trial within reasonable time, s. 10(a) and (b) detention rights), jury instructions on circumstantial evidence, and the unreasonableness of the first-degree murder conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction, upholding the trial judge's findings that the Rowbotham application was an abuse of process and that the trial was fair.

It also found no Charter breaches, no error in jury instructions, and that the conviction was reasonable.

The sentence appeal was allowed on a narrow point, varying a communication prohibition order to allow for family law-related communications.

Duane Anderson appealed a decision by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his detention order and imposed a condition prohibiting non-medical use of alcohol or drugs, specifically recreational cannabis.

The appellant argued the condition was not the least restrictive and lacked sufficient evidentiary basis.

The Court of Appeal found that the ORB was entitled to rely on expert psychiatric evidence that cannabis generally exacerbates psychotic symptoms, coupled with evidence of a prior aggressive incident linked to the appellant's excessive cannabis use.

Given the conceded significant risk to public safety, the Board was not required to wait for an actual adverse event.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the ORB's condition.

The appellant, R.M., appealed his convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and robbery, and his adult sentence of eight years, for offences committed when he was 17.

The Crown cross-appealed the conditional stay of the gang sexual assault conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed R.M.'s conviction appeal, finding the verdict reasonable and the complainant's credibility assessment proper.

It also dismissed the sentence appeal, upholding the adult sentence as not demonstrably unfit, finding the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness rebutted and the "Coke principle" not violated.

The Crown's cross-appeal was allowed, setting aside the conditional stay for gang sexual assault, as it was deemed a distinct offence from sexual assault with a weapon under the Kienapple principle.

The appellant, Michael Lights, appealed convictions for dangerous driving and criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and his sentence.

The convictions stemmed from a high-speed red light violation causing a serious accident, where his passenger had been shot.

The appeal grounds included the unreasonableness of the driver identification, the trial judge's failure to address the necessity defence, and the fitness of the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's identification of the driver was reasonable, there was no air of reality to the necessity defence, and the sentence was fit.

This is an appeal from convictions for sexual assault.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in refusing to admit expert evidence on false memories and in assessing witness credibility.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's decision to exclude the expert evidence, noting the judge's explicit consideration of false memories.

The court also upheld the trial judge's credibility assessments, emphasizing deference and the probative value of similar fact evidence.

The appeals from convictions were dismissed.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated February 4, 2019, ordering continued detention in the General Forensic Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, an independent assessment of his treatment plan and risk with an early hearing date.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's determination that the appellant continues to meet the threshold for significant threat was amply justified.

However, the court expressed concern that no concrete plan for community reintegration had been established as previously directed.

Three appellants appealed their convictions for a September 2015 bank robbery and related offences.

The Crown's case relied heavily on testimony from a witness with bipolar disorder and a permanent brain injury who had given a police statement while in custody.

The appellants challenged the admissibility and reliability of her evidence, arguing she was merely reading from her police statement rather than testifying from refreshed memory, and that a Vetrovec warning should have been given.

The trial judge found her evidence reliable and corroborated by circumstantial evidence including DNA evidence and surveillance footage.

The appellants also sought to introduce the witness's criminal record as fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld all convictions and dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings were reasonable and grounded in evidence.

The Crown appealed an acquittal for impaired care or control and over 80.

The respondent was found asleep in his running car while intoxicated.

The trial judge acquitted based on the respondent's credible testimony that he had no intention to drive and had an alternate plan to walk home after recovering from an asthma attack.

The appeal court upheld the acquittal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessment regarding the realistic risk of the vehicle being set in motion.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of assault, arguing that the trial was unfair due to numerous judicial interventions, that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons, and that the trial judge subjected his evidence to a greater degree of scrutiny than that of the complainant.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's interventions were necessary for clarity and did not indicate bias, that the reasons were sufficiently detailed for appellate review, and that there was no evidence of uneven scrutiny of the appellant's and complainant's evidence.

Dellen Millard was convicted of the first-degree murder of his father, Wayne Millard, his third first-degree murder conviction.

The court considered whether the mandatory 25-year parole ineligibility period for this murder should be served concurrently or consecutively to his existing 50-year parole ineligibility for two previous first-degree murders.

Applying the totality principle and considering the paramount sentencing objectives of denunciation and retribution, the court ordered the 25-year parole ineligibility period to be served consecutively, resulting in a global parole ineligibility of 75 years.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown sought to admit expert opinion evidence on shooting scene reconstruction.

The court ruled on the admissibility of Detective Constable Grant Sutherland's expert testimony.

While evidence concerning the general operation of revolvers and the specific firearm's design and gunshot residue (GSR) dispersal was deemed admissible, the expert's opinions on the gun's position, orientation, and the likelihood of the deceased discharging the shot were excluded.

The exclusion was primarily due to concerns about the expert's methodology and demonstrated confirmation bias, indicating an unwillingness or inability to provide impartial, independent, and unbiased evidence.

Dellen Millard, charged with first-degree murder of his father, Wayne Millard, elected trial by judge alone.

The Crown sought to introduce a photograph from the accused's online gaming profile, depicting him with a bloody eye wound, posted two weeks before his father's death by a gunshot wound to the eye.

The Crown argued its relevance to whether the death was suicide or homicide, suggesting it indicated a contemplation of murder or an improbable reaction if it were suicide.

The defence opposed, arguing irrelevance or excessive prejudice.

The court ruled the evidence inadmissible, finding it not relevant and material, as the Crown's reasoning was speculative propensity reasoning rather than logical inference.

Even if relevant, its minimal probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

Zachary Barton was found guilty by a jury of multiple firearms offences.

He brought an application for a stay of proceedings or a new trial, alleging police failed to preserve or disclose exculpatory video evidence.

The court dismissed this application, finding the defence failed to establish the existence of the alleged video footage.

Subsequently, the court proceeded to sentencing, considering Barton's extensive criminal record, the seriousness of the offences involving a loaded prohibited firearm, and sentencing principles.

A global sentence of 10 years imprisonment was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a remaining sentence of 6 years and 9 months.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA sample.