Kevin Chan

The appellant challenged an Ontario Review Board disposition continuing his detention under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code after an NCR finding.

He argued that the Board gave insufficient reasons on significant threat and failed to use its inquisitorial powers to test defence counsel's concession that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal held that the reasons were sufficient when read in light of the hospital report, the treating psychiatrist's evidence, and the uncontested record showing a link between substance use, psychiatric decompensation, and risk of criminal offending.

The court further held that the Board was not required to make additional inquiries where the position advanced was supported by evidence and had been independently considered by the Board.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant pled guilty to defrauding her employer of over $210,000 through fraudulent schemes and forgeries over several years.

She appealed her sentence of two years less a day, arguing the sentencing judge erred by not imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's emphasis on the appellant's significant criminal record for similar offences and the need for specific and general deterrence, despite her guilty plea and full restitution.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for index offences in 2004, appealed a conditional discharge disposition by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had concluded he remained a significant threat to public safety due to his historical substance abuse and lack of a formal community treatment plan.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion unreasonable given the appellant's years of stability, sobriety, medication adherence, and independent living.

The Court ordered an absolute discharge, emphasizing that the threshold for significant threat is onerous and cannot be based on speculative risks or what is merely in the appellant's best medical interests.

The appellant pleaded guilty to firearms offences after taking possession of a loaded gun from an intoxicated individual to prevent danger to the public.

He kept the gun in a safe for two and a half months while attempting to contact a lawyer, during which time police seized it.

The sentencing judge imposed a seven-month conditional sentence, declining to grant a discharge due to the appellant's criminal record, existing weapons prohibitions, and lack of diligence in divesting the weapon.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of mitigating and aggravating factors or the calculation of pre-sentence credit.

The applicant sought release pending appeal from convictions for two counts of indecent assault against the daughters of his then-partner, committed approximately 50 years ago when the victims were approximately 9 and 13 years old.

The applicant received a conditional sentence.

The Crown opposed the release application, arguing the applicant failed to establish that his grounds of appeal were not frivolous and that immediate enforcement was necessary to maintain public confidence given the seriousness of the offences.

The motion judge granted the application for release, finding that the applicant's ground of appeal regarding the trial judge's admission of extraneous bad character evidence clearly surpassed the "not frivolous" criterion and that the reviewability interest outweighed the immediate enforceability interest.

The applicant was convicted of two counts of human trafficking and sentenced to 7.5 years imprisonment.

She sought bail pending appeal on three grounds: (1) the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay evidence; (2) the trial judge erred in dismissing an application to re-litigate the hearsay issue; and (3) the trial judge misapprehended evidence and provided insufficient reasons.

The motion judge found the appeal was not frivolous and that detention was not necessary in the public interest, granting bail pending appeal.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against a Not Criminally Responsible by Reason of Mental Disorder (NCR) verdict entered in 2013 following a guilty plea to two counts of aggravated assault.

This was the applicant's second application for an extension of time, the first having been denied in 2016.

The applicant raised new grounds of appeal based on an allegedly uninformed plea and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting reconsideration and granted the extension of time, finding that the interests of justice favoured allowing the appeal to proceed despite the significant delay and prejudice to the Crown.