Kevin Pitt

The appellant, Joshua Rodrigues, appealed his conviction for unreasonable verdict and his sentence regarding a victim fee surcharge.

The conviction appeal argued that the trial judge used illogical reasoning to reject the appellant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were detailed, comprehensive, and not illogical or inconsistent with the evidence.

The appeal against sentence, specifically concerning the $1,800 victim fee surcharge, was allowed on consent, and that portion of the sentence order was set aside.

The appellant, M.L., appealed convictions for four counts, including exercising control for exploitation, receiving financial benefit from exploitation, receiving financial benefit from prostitution, and advertising sexual services.

The Crown's case relied primarily on K.G.B. statements provided by the complainant, who later recanted at trial.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's admissibility analysis of these statements or in his assessment of their reliability.

The trial judge's approach of seeking corroborative evidence, effectively treating the complainant as a Vetrovec witness, was upheld.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was abandoned.

The appellant was convicted in a judge-alone trial of two counts of sexual assault and one count of choking, receiving a three-year sentence.

He appealed his convictions, arguing errors in the assessment of corroborative evidence, conflation of credibility and reliability, and reliance on stereotypes regarding witness reticence.

He also sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction, finding the trial judge's assessment of evidence, including an audio recording, was sound and that any comment on witness reticence was not material to the decision.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was deemed entirely fit given the serious nature of the assaults, breach of trust, and attempts to subvert justice.

The appellant, Andrew Myles, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge erred in her assessment of credibility and reliability by relying on stereotypical reasoning, finding fabricated evidence, and implicitly finding tailored evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge's factual findings were rooted in the evidence and did not constitute impermissible stereotypical inferences or improper findings of tailored evidence.

The court emphasized the high degree of appellate deference owed to trial judges on credibility assessments.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his detention in a secure forensic unit, arguing for a hybrid order allowing the hospital discretion over placement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the uncontested evidence that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety and posed a high risk of absconding.

The accused was charged with firearms offences after police searched his rental vehicle incident to an arrest for a two-year-old homicide.

The police found a loaded firearm in the vehicle.

The accused brought an application to exclude the evidence, arguing the search violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found that the search was not truly incident to the arrest, as there were no valid safety concerns and no reasonable prospect of locating the homicide firearm in the vehicle two years later.

The court concluded that the police conduct was deliberate and routine, demonstrating a flagrant disregard for Charter rights.

The application was granted, and the firearm and other evidence were excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Renata Migdalski was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

The trial addressed two main issues: an alleged violation of her section 10(b) Charter right to counsel and whether the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found no Charter breach, concluding that police acted diligently and the accused did not express dissatisfaction with duty counsel.

Based on consistent witness observations and video evidence, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation.

The over 80 charge was conditionally stayed.

This decision concerns the sentencing of H.W., who was found guilty by a jury of three counts of sexual assault and three counts of sexual interference against the daughters of his common-law partner.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victims' young age (10-13), abuse of trust within a familial context, multiple victims, and the significant, long-lasting impact on the complainants.

Mitigating factors included the offender's own traumatic history as a child victim of sexual abuse, lack of support, experience with anti-Black racism, a substantial gap in his criminal record, and the collateral consequences of serving a sentence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought 4-5 years, while the defence sought 3 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years imprisonment, with three sexual assault counts stayed.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order with the victims.

During a trial for sexual assault and sexual interference, the Crown applied to amend the indictment to expand the date range of the alleged offences to conform to the evidence of the first witness.

The defence opposed the application, arguing prejudice to their cross-examination and theory of the case.

The court granted the application, finding that the date of the offences was not an essential element and the amendment would not prejudice the accused's ability to meet the charges.

During a trial for sexual assault and sexual interference, the accused brought a Corbett application to exclude his prior criminal record if he chose to testify.

The accused's record consisted of eight convictions between 1992 and 2011, including assault and drug possession.

The court applied the Corbett factors and found that the defence had attacked the character and credibility of the Crown witnesses, making the accused's record relevant to provide a balanced picture to the jury.

The application was dismissed, allowing the Crown to cross-examine the accused on his record if he testifies.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit of 80 mg/100 ml of blood.

The Crown obtained breath readings of 140 and 130 mg/100 ml.

The defence sought to exclude these readings under sections 9, 10(b), and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found no breach of section 10(b) rights regarding the delay in informing the accused of his right to counsel.

However, the court found a breach of section 9 rights due to an unjustified six-hour overholding of the accused.

The court determined the breath readings were obtained in a manner that violated the Charter and excluded them under section 24(2), resulting in dismissal of the charge.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood following a roadside stop and breath testing.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings or exclusion of breath evidence under sections 24(1) and 24(2) of the Charter, alleging multiple breaches: a seven-minute delay in providing rights to counsel, denial of access to counsel of choice, arbitrary detention contrary to section 9, and failure to provide a further opportunity to consult counsel following the decision to detain for a show cause hearing.

The court found a breach of the right to counsel of choice but dismissed all applications for stay or exclusion of evidence, finding the accused guilty as charged.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

A retired police officer discovered a vehicle in a ditch and spoke with two women at the scene.

The Crown's case rested primarily on eyewitness identification by the witness, circumstantial evidence, and alleged admissions by the accused.

The defence conceded the accused had been drinking but contested whether she was the driver.

The court found the eyewitness identification unreliable due to poor observation conditions, lack of corroborating details, and material discrepancies between the witness's description and the accused's appearance.

The charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt as to identity.