Laskin

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision that had overturned the respondent's conviction by applying the necessity defence.

The Court of Appeal granted leave and allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had correctly applied the test for necessity and made factual findings that the defence was not made out.

The summary conviction appeal court judge erred in law by failing to defer to those factual findings and effectively retrying the case.

The convictions were restored.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that overturned the accused's conviction for driving over 80.

The summary conviction appeal judge had found that an unexplained 28-minute delay between the first and second breath samples meant the samples were not taken 'as soon as practicable' under the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the law by looking at the whole chain of events and that the Crown is not required to provide a detailed explanation for every minute the accused is in custody.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety.

The Court also found the Board's decision to detain the appellant on a secure unit rather than a general unit or via a hybrid order was reasonable given concerns about her risk of going AWOL and assaultive behaviour.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the appellant's efforts to improve his condition but dismissed the appeal as moot because the Board had since issued a later disposition.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Summary Convictions Appeal Court dismissing his appeal from conviction.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding that the proposed appeal did not meet either branch of the test for leave to appeal under R. v. R.(R.).

The publication ban on the complainant's identity was continued.

The appellant, a disabled senior, received an overpayment of ODSP income support due to an innocent reporting error regarding his rent.

The Director ordered full repayment.

The Social Benefits Tribunal reduced the recovery to half the amount, but the Divisional Court overturned this, finding no discretion to forgive a Crown debt.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Director's discretion under section 14(4) of the ODSPA includes the authority to forgo recovery of an overpayment, and that the Tribunal has the same discretion on appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision declaring that the respondent's debt would be released by his discharge from bankruptcy.

The respondent had acted as a 'straw borrower' and co-signed a mortgage application, unaware that the primary borrower had made fraudulent misrepresentations.

The appellant argued the debt should survive bankruptcy under s. 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act due to false pretences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 178(1)(e) requires a causal connection between the bankrupt's false pretences or fraudulent misrepresentation and the obtaining of the property.

The trial judge correctly found the mortgage funds were advanced based on the primary borrower's misrepresentations, not the respondent's.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a loaded prohibited weapon, arguing that cross-examination on a draft affidavit was improper, the trial judge misapplied the W.D. test, and the trial judge failed to address the mens rea for the firearm offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the cross-examination was fair, the trial judge properly assessed credibility and reasonable doubt, and there was a sufficient evidentiary basis to infer the appellant knew the firearm was loaded.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) due to schizophrenia, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that imposed a detention order.

The Board had imposed the detention order primarily because the hospital was conducting a drug reduction program to demonstrate the appellant's need for medication.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board erred by justifying a restriction on liberty based on a risk created by a hospital treatment program rather than considering treatments available in the community.

The Court substituted a conditional discharge, finding it to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available given the appellant's progress, lack of prior violence, and family support.

The appellant municipality appealed a Superior Court decision that rescinded a remedial order issued against the respondent property owner for violating a property standards by-law regarding external lighting.

The appeal judge had found the order overly broad and the by-law impermissibly retrospective.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the by-law was prospective in requiring future compliance and clearly intended to affect vested rights.

The Court also found the remedial order was not overly broad, though it amended the wording slightly to conform to the by-law by adding the word 'likely'.

The remedial order was reinstated as amended.

The appellant brought a motion under s. 683(1)(b) of the Criminal Code to compel the complainant to attend for cross-examination in support of a fresh evidence application.

The proposed fresh evidence consisted of an affidavit from the appellant's daughter alleging the complainant lied at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed fresh evidence did not suggest the complainant lied at trial, but rather that she had been deceived by her husband.

The court concluded that cross-examination of the complainant was not in the interests of justice as there was no reasonable possibility it could undermine her credibility on matters material to the harassment allegations.

The appellant appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reasons justified the disposition and were supported by medical evidence.

The Court noted that a conditional discharge could be possible in the future if the appellant accepts the proposed hospital treatment.

The appellant appealed a 22-month sentence for offences including assault, death threats, criminal harassment, and breach of recognizance.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to consider the totality principle when imposing consecutive sentences.

Given the offender's youth, the court granted leave to appeal and reduced the total sentence to 18 months, resulting in 13 months going forward after accounting for 5 months of pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that his arrest at the door of his apartment was unlawful and unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's factual findings, including marihuana smoke, suspicious conduct, and drug paraphernalia visible from the door, provided ample grounds for a lawful arrest.

As the arrest was lawful, there was no breach of section 9 of the Charter, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant argued the disposition was unreasonable, that his explanations for refusing medication were ignored, and that the Board lost jurisdiction by granting an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disposition reasonable given the appellant's significant risk, and holding that any potential loss of jurisdiction was cured by section 672.53 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant chose not to attend the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The Children's Lawyer and other appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application to appoint an independent trustee for an inter vivos spousal trust.

The appellants alleged that the respondents, who were directors of the corporation wholly owned by the trust, committed a breach of trust by declaring dividends in excess of net income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondents' actions as directors were governed by the Business Corporations Act, not the trust agreement, and did not constitute a breach of trust.

The court also dismissed an application to admit fresh evidence and upheld the application judge's order that costs be paid out of the estate.

The moving party, a mental health centre, brought a motion to suspend a placement decision of the Ontario Review Board pending appeal.

The respondent, a dual status offender, was ordered by the Board to be transferred from a federal penitentiary to the mental health centre.

The moving party argued that the transfer posed a safety risk and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that the test for suspending a placement decision is whether the moving party has shown a compelling reason to doubt the reasonableness of the Board's decision concerning the mental condition of the accused.

The moving party failed to meet this heavy burden.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, relying on an alibi.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable despite the alibi evidence.

The appellants were convicted of two counts of first-degree murder following a home invasion and robbery of a drug dealer, during which two victims were unlawfully confined and shot to death.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding the defence of alibi, a third-party suspect, the correction of defence counsel's closing address, the failure to give timely notice of an alibi witness, and the elements of accessorial liability for constructive first-degree murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions.

The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to leave constructive first-degree murder to the jury for the non-shooter as an aider and abettor, and concluded that the verdicts were not unreasonable.