Karen Shai

The appellant, who had died prior to the appeal hearing, was convicted on March 16, 2017 by Justice Randall W. Lalande of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Both the Crown and the appellant's counsel agreed that the conviction represented a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal.

Two appellants were convicted following a jury trial for their roles in an armed robbery of a drug dealer's residence in Barrhaven.

During the robbery, one of the perpetrators shot and killed the resident.

The first appellant was convicted of first degree murder; the second appellant was convicted of second degree murder.

On appeal, the first appellant's conviction was upheld.

However, the second appellant's conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered due to errors in the trial judge's jury instructions regarding the mens rea requirement for party liability to murder under section 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant was convicted on an indictment containing ten counts of various offences against three persons, with allegations spanning periods of 8 to 10 years.

On appeal from conviction, the appellant advanced two grounds: first, that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence, subjecting Crown witnesses to a less rigorous standard than defence witnesses; and second, that the trial judge improperly imposed an evidentiary burden on the appellant to explain injuries sustained by one complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds, finding that the trial judge's reasons reflected a cautious, even-handed approach to credibility assessment and that the trial judge's comments regarding the unexplained injuries were merely observations on the state of evidence rather than an improper shift in the burden of proof.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 6, 2017, challenging the Board's addition of a "24-hour-a-day" supervision requirement to a community accommodation condition.

The appellant contended this requirement was not part of the joint submission made at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal, determining that the hearing transcript clearly showed counsel for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health had proposed a housing clause specifically including 24-hour staff supervision, which the appellant's counsel had supported.

The Board's disposition therefore accepted the parties' joint submission rather than departing from it.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a ten-year sentence imposed for manslaughter following her conviction for beating her three-year-old daughter to death.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: inadequate credit for stringent bail conditions, penalization for letters of support from family members, treatment of absence of remorse as an aggravating factor, and failure to consider immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding no error in the trial judge's sentencing decision.

The court emphasized the brutal nature of the killing, the extensive injuries inflicted on the victim, and the absence of meaningful mitigating factors.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on eight charges of serious assault, including physical and sexual abuse.

The trial judge acquitted the respondent on all counts after a nine-day trial.

The Crown argued that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for the acquittals, providing only brief comments on the record that did not explain the decision or permit meaningful appellate review.

The trial judge promised detailed written reasons but never delivered them despite repeated requests over several months.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's brief comments constituted only the "bottom line" decision without any analysis of the evidence, contradictions between witnesses, or identification of specific evidentiary gaps supporting the reasonable doubt conclusion.

The court held that the failure to provide reasons that permit meaningful appellate review constitutes reversible error in law.

The appellant appealed his conviction, seeking to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to admit fresh evidence, finding it lacked potential cogency and was available at trial.

The Court upheld the conviction, concluding that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient and the trial judge did not err in giving substantial weight to the false alibi evidence.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a mental health facility.

He argued his risk could be managed on a conditional discharge and that his detention amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion reasonable given the appellant's lack of community support, history of elopements, and substance abuse issues.

The Court also rejected the Charter argument, noting the detention was not a probable period of indefinite incarceration as the facility offered necessary programming for potential future reintegration.

The appellant, a military member, appealed his sexual assault conviction on the basis of unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, and appealed his sentence regarding a $4,000 victim surcharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's characterization of pre-charge and post-charge delay.

The sentence appeal was allowed, and the victim surcharge was reduced to the statutory minimum of $100 because there was no inquiry into the appellant's ability to pay the elevated amount.

The appellant, a caregiver for an elderly man, was convicted of fraud and theft after withdrawing approximately $180,000 from his bank account over several years.

She was also convicted of defrauding the Department of Veterans Affairs.

She was sentenced to 20 months in custody, two years of probation, and ordered to pay restitution.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge erred in finding she controlled the victim, that the verdict was unreasonable, and that the restitution order failed to consider her ability to pay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions reasonable and the restitution order appropriate given the amounts taken and the modest payment schedule imposed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable and based on the expert evidence of Dr. Woodside.

The Court held that the Board's order represented the least onerous and least restrictive disposition for the appellant at the time, and there was no basis to inquire into what might happen beyond the one-year term of the disposition.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting the complainant's hearsay statements to her mother and a videotaped statement to police under the necessity exception.

The complainant was unavailable to testify on the trial date for medical reasons.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the trial judge's discretionary decision that the necessity requirement was met, as there was evidence that the complainant would not be available to testify within an acceptable period of time.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

At trial, he challenged the constitutionality of the 'rape shield' provisions in s. 276 of the Criminal Code, which restrict the admissibility of evidence of a complainant's prior sexual activity.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the provisions, finding that they do not violate the accused's right to make full answer and defence, the right to a fair trial, or the right against self-incrimination.

The Court held that the provisions properly balance the accused's rights with the need to protect the integrity of the trial process and the privacy of complainants.