Melissa Ragsdale

The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple fraud-related offences and was sentenced to three years' incarceration and ordered to pay $19,542.42 in restitution.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in assessing rehabilitation prospects, overemphasizing his criminal record, and imposing restitution.

The Court of Appeal upheld the custodial sentence, noting the appellant's extensive criminal record and the seriousness of the offences.

However, the Court set aside the restitution order because the sentencing judge failed to consider the appellant's ability to pay.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge misapprehended evidence regarding his continued abuse of a victim after being released from jail for a similar offence.

The appellant also argued the judge failed to give proper weight to an expert report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that even if the sentencing judge erred as alleged, the overall sentence imposed was fit.

The appellant appealed his sentence following convictions for a brutal, unprovoked assault on his common-law partner, as well as assaults on another individual and the police.

The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge should have given the appellant pre-trial credit for months seven and eight on a one-for-one basis.

However, the Court concluded that the overall sentence of five years, after crediting one year for pre-trial custody, was entirely fit given the seriousness of the offences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board detaining him in a minimum secure unit.

He argued the Board erred by admitting a police summary of his prior criminal activity and that the disposition was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board has wide latitude to receive hearsay evidence and did not rely heavily on the summary.

The Court also held the disposition was reasonable, supported by the evidence of the treating psychiatrist, and represented the least onerous restriction consistent with public protection.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence and in assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the similar fact evidence was highly probative on the issue of consent and properly used to corroborate the complainant's account.

The Court also held the trial judge correctly applied the W.(D.) framework, assessing all the evidence rather than merely choosing between the complainant's and the appellant's versions.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for constructive possession of a weapon and marijuana.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's inference of constructive possession.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal the sentence, holding that the trial judge erred in concluding he could not reduce a mandatory minimum sentence to account for pre-trial custody.

The sentence was reduced to time served.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his summary conviction appeal from convictions for assault and breach of probation, and from the sentence imposed.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in permitting reply evidence regarding the appellant's arrest.

However, the Court of Appeal applied the curative proviso, finding that the elements of the offence were made out on the appellant's own evidence that he pushed his common law spouse with a broom handle and swatted a candle at her.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, but leave to appeal the sentence was granted to reduce the sentence by six days to account for pre-trial custody.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted by the trial judge based on unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with serious offences against his spouse.

The trial judge found the 19-month delay in the Ontario Court of Justice exceeded guidelines.

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred by including the neutral intake period in the systemic delay calculation, isolating the delay in the Ontario Court of Justice from the total time, and mischaracterizing inherent time requirements as systemic delay.

The total 23-month delay was not unreasonable given the serious charges and scheduling complexities.

The appeal was allowed, the stay set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The Crown obtained search warrants under the Provincial Offences Act relating to a meat packing business.

The Crown subsequently obtained an ex parte sealing order for the warrants and informations, arguing disclosure could identify a confidential informant and interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation.

Media outlets successfully applied to quash the sealing order.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the Dagenais/Mentuck test applies to all discretionary court orders that limit freedom of expression and freedom of the press, including sealing orders at the investigative stage.

The Court found the Crown failed to meet its burden, as it relied only on a generalized assertion that publicity could compromise the investigation rather than demonstrating a serious and specific risk.

The appellant appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board's determination that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety was not unreasonable, relying on the hospital's report and expert testimony.

The Court found the disposition, which allowed the appellant to reside in approved community housing, to be the least onerous and least restrictive option available.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants were convicted of second degree murder and manslaughter, respectively, following the fatal beating of a homeless man.

They appealed their convictions, and one appealed his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to grant an adjournment for a challenge for cause, upholding the constitutionality of the peremptory challenge allocation in s. 634(2) of the Criminal Code, and finding the jury instructions regarding co-accused testimony, the failure to testify, and the review of evidence to be balanced and legally correct.

The sentence of life imprisonment with 12 years parole ineligibility was also upheld.

The appellant appealed an order of the Ontario Review Board directing his continued detention at a mental health centre.

The index offence was criminal harassment.

The Board found that the appellant suffered from a major mental illness, continued to have feelings for the victim, and would likely discontinue his medication without external controls.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat was not unreasonable and was supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed from an order of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown agreed that the appeal must be allowed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the charge.

The young offender appealed their conviction.

The Court of Appeal found that there was evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion and that she properly directed herself on the elements of the offence.

As the appeal did not raise a question of law alone, leave to appeal was refused.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly resolve important inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by relying on the complainant's demeanour and absence of motive to fabricate instead of resolving the core inconsistencies in her story.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing he was denied due process and Charter rights because he was not present at his hearing and was not appointed counsel.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had refused to appear and refused to sign documents for counsel, making it open to the Board to proceed in his absence.

The Court also upheld the Board's decision to keep the appellant in a restrictive ward due to his continued denial of mental illness, refusal of treatment, and disruptive conduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board unreasonably found him to be a significant risk to the public and misapplied the least restrictive alternative test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that psychiatric evidence supported the significant threat finding and that a detention order with permission to live in the community satisfied the least restrictive alternative standard, particularly given the appellant's history of substance abuse linked to his mental illness.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, was transferred from a medium security facility to a maximum security facility by order of the Ontario Review Board.

The Review Board concluded that the 'least onerous and least restrictive' test under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code did not apply to the specific conditions of the disposition.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the 'least onerous and least restrictive' requirement applies to the disposition order as a whole, including its conditions.

The Court found that the Review Board committed an error of law and that the Crown failed to demonstrate that no substantial wrong occurred, entitling the appellant to a re-hearing.

The appellant appealed his conviction for a sexual offence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge misapprehended the complainant's evidence regarding whether she yelled during the incident.

The trial judge also failed to adequately address the complainant's prior inconsistent statement made under oath to the police, in which she denied any sexual activity.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable.

The appellant had admitted his involvement in the robbery to a witness with a criminal record, but the balance of the evidence confirmed the admission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was in the best position to assess credibility and the verdict was not unreasonable.