Kevin Richard Gray

The appellant, Jerome Williams, appealed the Ontario Review Board’s decision ordering his continued detention in the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs Division at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

Williams argued that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and sought an absolute discharge, or alternatively, a transfer to a medium secure facility.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board’s assessment of risk and the necessity of continued detention at Waypoint were reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly in light of ongoing concerns about medication compliance and substance use.

The media appellants sought full, unredacted access to youth court records concerning eight young persons accused of second-degree murder, arguing that the open court principle (Dagenais-Mentuck test) should grant them presumptive access.

The Youth Court and Superior Court granted only partial, redacted access, holding that the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) statutory scheme for record access (s. 119(1)(s)) takes precedence over the common law open court principle.

The YCJA requires applicants to demonstrate a "valid interest" and that access is "desirable in the interest of the proper administration of justice," balancing public interest with the young persons' heightened privacy rights and rehabilitation goals.

The Superior Court also declined to hear the appellants' constitutional challenge to the YCJA provisions, deeming the Youth Court the more appropriate forum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the YCJA's specific statutory regime for youth record access is a valid exception to the open court principle and that the media must meet its criteria via a formal application on notice.

It also upheld the discretion not to hear the constitutional challenge at the Superior Court level.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, appealed an Ontario Review Board order requiring his transfer from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (Waypoint).

The transfer was necessitated by the appellant's persistent harassing and stalking behaviour towards female staff at CAMH, which had exhausted CAMH's resources and posed a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the Board's decision-making process, no reasonable apprehension of bias from the panel's composition, and that the Board's decision to transfer was reasonable given the safety risks and the exhaustion of CAMH's resources, particularly the need for a male-only unit.

This case concerns a motion by the Crown and the Ministry of Children, Community, and Social Services to summarily dismiss a habeas corpus application brought by a youth accused of murder, M.J. M.J. was initially detained in an open custody facility, then transferred to a secure facility to facilitate an in-person bail review.

After being released on bail, M.J. continued her habeas corpus application, seeking Charter costs and damages for alleged unlawful detention.

The court granted the summary dismissal, finding that habeas corpus is not available for a person no longer detained and that claims for Charter damages and compensation should be pursued in civil courts, not joined with criminal habeas corpus applications.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, emphasizing judicial economy and the proper function of criminal courts.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of producing marijuana without authorization and two counts of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

He appealed both his convictions and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of mens rea, party liability, or credibility.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the original sentence demonstrably unfit due to the duration of house arrest and electronic monitoring, and set aside the probation order.

The appellant, Mark Roberts, sought a suspension of an Ontario Review Board order directing his transfer from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health due to his difficult and harassing behaviour towards female staff at CAMH.

The court applied the specific, higher test under s. 672.76 of the Criminal Code for suspending Board dispositions, which requires compelling reasons to doubt the Board's decision's validity or soundness based on the accused's mental condition, and exceptional circumstances.

The court found the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the transfer's impact on his mental condition to justify a suspension, especially considering the severe adverse impact of his conduct on CAMH's operations and staff safety.

The motion for suspension was dismissed.

Tenzin Norbu appealed a committal order for extradition to the United States on immigration fraud charges and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order.

The alleged scheme involved preparing and selling fraudulent documentation and false narratives to asylum seekers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, finding sufficient identification evidence and evidence for the broader fraudulent scheme, and the application for judicial review, upholding the Minister's decision not to seek assurances regarding potential deportation to China.

The appellant appealed an extradition order and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order related to fraud charges in the U.S. The core issues included an alleged s. 8 Charter breach regarding the use of passport photographs, a request for additional disclosure, and an argument of improper delegation by the Minister.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and judicial review, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in passport photos, no basis for further disclosure, and that the Minister's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant, Ezra Harely, appealed his convictions for possession and production of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and his 18-month custodial sentence.

The appeal raised three grounds: a flawed s. 8 Charter analysis and admission of seized evidence, improper jury instructions, and the trial judge's refusal to impose a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the trial judge's s. 8 Charter analysis or findings of fact regarding the search warrants, no reversible error in the jury charge, and no unfitness or error in principle in the imposed custodial sentence given the scale of the operation and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The United States sought the extradition of Sabrina Elofer.

Elofer brought an application for extraordinary disclosure, leave to cross-examine police officers, and a stay of proceedings based on alleged abusive state conduct, which was dismissed.

Elofer then sought reconsideration of that decision, arguing she had not had a full opportunity to make submissions on all issues.

The court dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no error in its prior decision and that the applicant's arguments had been sufficiently heard and lacked an air of reality to justify further proceedings or a stay.

The appellant, convicted of theft over $5,000 and sentenced to six months imprisonment followed by two years probation, appealed both her conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge properly grappled with the evidence and that the grounds of appeal constituted an attempt to reargue the trial.

The court also denied a fresh evidence application regarding alleged gaps in the trial transcript, concluding that the appellant failed to establish irreparable prejudice or that material evidence was missing.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was not demonstrably unfit and the trial judge's discretion in declining a conditional sentence for a breach of trust involving theft from an employer was upheld.