Leanne Salel

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention with community privileges.

The respondents sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding recent events, which the Court of Appeal declined to admit to avoid delaying the hearing until the next annual review.

On the merits, the Court found the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety was supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown sought leave to appeal a decision of the summary conviction appeal court that had allowed the accused's appeal from conviction.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the summary conviction appeal court judge's reasons and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to provide an adequate review of the evidence and failed to provide a balanced charge to the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge could have provided a fuller explanation of the evidence, the charge was adequate in the circumstances and the jury would have understood the defence advanced.

The appellant appealed his sentence for assault causing bodily harm, an included offence of wounding.

The appellant struck the victim in the face, causing her to stumble and fall down the stairs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was entirely justified as the appellant was properly held responsible for all of the victim's injuries.

The appellant appealed his conviction for criminal harassment, which arose from his repeated calls, texts, and visits to the complainant's workplace after she assisted him with his cell phone.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in finding the elements of the offence proven and in assessing the complainant's credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence supported the trial judge's factual findings and that his credibility assessment was entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to properly apply the W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that although the reasons could have been fuller, the trial judge directed his mind to the application of W.(D.).

The court noted that the foundation for the conviction was evident from the record and the defence position was utterly implausible.

The appellant appealed his conviction for uttering threats.

He argued that the trial judge erred in finding a threat was made and that the conviction was inconsistent with an acquittal on a related charge from the previous day.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the accepted evidence and that there was no contradiction between the verdicts because the evidence for the two days differed.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application to quash their committal for trial.

They argued a denial of natural justice regarding the preliminary inquiry judge's use of hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no denial of natural justice, noting that counsel had the opportunity to make submissions on the issue and that the absence of a voir dire did not constitute jurisdictional error.

The court also found sufficient evidence of knowledge and control of a gun to warrant committal, based on the location of the child, the car seat, and the visibility of the gun.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter after loading a shotgun that his girlfriend subsequently used to shoot and kill the victim.

The sentencing judge imposed an effective sentence of 12.5 years, including pre-trial custody credit.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentence was unfit given his minimal involvement in the actual killing.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the sentence was outside the appropriate range, noting the lack of evidence of actual participation in the killing and the absence of a serious related criminal record.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to nine years less credit for pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision, arguing that once a breathalyzer technician submits a breath sample and the instrument produces a result, the sample is automatically deemed 'necessary to enable proper analysis' under s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code, removing any discretion to reject it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the statute contains no such limitation and agreeing that the trial judge erred in concluding the technician lacked discretion to reject an unsuitable sample.

The Crown appealed a youth court judge's decision to stay proceedings against a young person due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The young person had been in custody for three months from arrest to the scheduled trial date.

The youth court judge found that the Youth Criminal Justice Act created an enhanced duty for speedier trials compared to the Young Offenders Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the youth court judge erred, as the YCJA merely codified existing jurisprudence and did not impose new, stricter timelines.

The Court found the three-month delay reasonable and set aside the stay of proceedings.

The appellant, a Francophone, requested and was granted an order under s. 530 of the Criminal Code for a trial before a judge and jury that spoke French.

However, the trial judge and Crown counsel spoke English throughout much of the trial, and the first five days of testimony took place solely in English with translation provided to the accused.

No transcript of the interpretation was entered in the record during those five days.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's rights under ss. 530 and 530.1(e) and (g) were infringed, as the trial judge and Crown counsel are required to actually use the official language of the accused's choice, not just understand it.

The remedial provision in s. 686(1)(b)(iv) could not be applied to this violation.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed her custodial sentence, arguing for a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the trial judge.

The trial judge's conclusion that public safety would be endangered by a conditional sentence was supported by the appellant's long record of offences involving dishonesty and theft, and the trial judge appropriately weighed mitigating factors including the appellant's fragile health.

The appellant appealed an eleven-month sentence for breaching a non-contact clause in a recognizance of bail on a pending sexual assault charge.

The breach involved an unintentional, two-minute meeting with the victim with no threats or violence.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was outside the appropriate range, granted leave to appeal, and reduced the sentence to four months, with two months' credit for pre-trial custody.

The respondent was charged under the Liquor Licence Act.

Due to the unavailability of a justice of the peace, a clerk of the court adjourned the matter.

The respondent successfully applied for an order of prohibition, arguing the court lost jurisdiction.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that while the clerk had no authority to adjourn the matter, section 31 of the Provincial Offences Act preserved jurisdiction over the offence despite the court's failure to act.