Leslie Karen Monique Paine

The appellant appealed convictions for possession of stolen property and possession of cocaine, as well as the associated sentences and a forfeiture order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions on Counts 1 and 2 and the cocaine charge, finding ample evidence of wilful blindness and possession.

However, the court set aside the conviction on Count 3 (home theatre/DVD equipment) due to insufficient evidence.

The forfeiture order was upheld under s. 490.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

The conviction appeal was allowed in part, and the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and impaired driving, as well as his sentence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the Crown disproved self-defence under s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code, as the appellant stabbed his assailant without warning when he could have escaped.

The court also upheld the rejection of the necessity defence for impaired driving.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part, reducing the impaired driving sentence from one year to four months concurrent, based on a Crown concession.

The court declined to interfere with the trial judge's refusal to impose a conditional sentence for the assault.

The appellant appealed from a sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

At the hearing, counsel for the appellant advised the court that he was unable to reach his client.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The Crown appealed the blended sentences of 23 months (including a 17-month conditional sentence) imposed on the respondents for repeated sexual offences against their son over a 9-year period.

The Court of Appeal found the sentences manifestly unfit, noting that such profoundly exploitive breaches of trust require a penitentiary term.

The sentencing judge erred by relying on an inappropriately absolving report, treating the repetitive assaults as isolated incidents, and failing to give sufficient consideration to denunciation.

The appeal was allowed, and a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment was substituted.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in applying the reasonable doubt standard.

The Summary Conviction Appeal judge affirmed the conviction, finding the trial judge properly instructed himself to decide credibility in light of the entire evidence.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding no error by the trial judge or the Summary Conviction Appeal judge, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge made errors in principle and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's treatment of the identification evidence, including a witness's description, a photo line-up, and a dolphin pendant linking the appellant to the crimes.

The court concluded that while the case was not overwhelming, the cumulative evidence was sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to convict.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for a serious historical offence committed 20 years prior.

The Court of Appeal noted that a period of substantial incarceration would have been warranted despite the passage of time and the respondent's positive lifestyle.

However, because the respondent had already successfully completed 9 months of the conditional sentence, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown appealed a total sentence of 2.5 years imposed for serious historical offences.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence demonstrably unfit, noting that while the respondent's positive conduct over the twenty years since the offences demonstrated a low risk of re-offending, the seriousness of the crimes required a denunciatory penitentiary term.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentences were made consecutive for a total sentence of 4.5 years.

The appellant appealed the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated August 7, 2002.

The Court of Appeal found no basis on the record to conclude that the Board's decision was unreasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant pleaded guilty to six counts of fraud and received a custodial sentence, despite his trial counsel's assurance that he would receive a non-custodial sentence based on a pre-trial meeting with the judge.

The appellant appealed, arguing the plea resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence confirming the counsel's assurance and the appellant's mistaken belief that the consequences of his plea were settled.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial, finding that denying a trial on the merits would be a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for extortion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant assaulted and threatened the complainant to obtain money owed.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the original sentence of three years and four months disproportionate despite the appellant's prior extortion conviction.

The sentence was varied to two years.

The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal harassment, break and enter with intent to commit criminal harassment, assault, mischief, and breach of probation.

The Court of Appeal held that the offence of criminal harassment was not made out, as the trial judge expressly found that the complainant had lied and that the appellant had been in her apartment with her permission immediately before the incident.

Consequently, the convictions for criminal harassment and break and enter with intent to commit criminal harassment were quashed.

The remaining convictions and sentence were upheld.

The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence, advancing numerous grounds that largely re-argued minor evidentiary rulings from trial.

The court held that the appellant's submissions failed to confront overwhelming direct evidence from three eyewitnesses to the attack.

It agreed with the trial judge that there was no basis to direct a fitness proceeding, applying the governing appellate authority on fitness to stand trial.

Although the court found one category of threat evidence was not admissible as direct evidence, it concluded the point was of little consequence given the appellant's implied adoption of one threat and the other cogent evidence bearing on animosity, planning, and deliberation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and firearm offences, arguing that the trial judge erred by not excluding evidence from an informal line-up due to alleged breaches of his ss. 7 and 10(b) Charter rights, and by misapprehending identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no Charter breach and noting that the trial judge did not rely on the line-up evidence.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant was the shooter, as all witnesses agreed the shooter was the person pursued and beaten by the crowd, which matched the appellant.

The respondent, a licensed chiropractor, pleaded guilty to nine counts of sexual assault against his female patients over a ten-year period.

The trial judge imposed an eighteen-month conditional sentence.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that the conditional sentence failed to adequately reflect the principles of general deterrence and denunciation given the gravity of the offences and the gross breach of trust.

The appeal was allowed, and the conditional sentence was replaced with a nine-month term of imprisonment.

The appellant, a bouncer, struck a patron outside a tavern, causing the patron to fall and hit his head on the concrete, resulting in death.

The preliminary inquiry judge committed the appellant for trial on a charge of murder, finding evidence that he knew his actions were likely to cause death and was reckless.

The appellant's application for certiorari to quash the committal was refused.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the evidence of the requisite knowledge was weak, there was a scintilla of evidence to support the committal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and forcible confinement, as well as his sentence of nine years plus time served.

He argued the verdict was unreasonable and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the verdict and no basis for the ineffective assistance claim.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was justified by the serious nature of the offences and the appellant's extensive criminal record.

The appellant appealed convictions for theft and possession of stolen property, arguing that the trial judge failed to address weaknesses in the identification evidence, improperly relied on witness sincerity instead of reliability, and returned an unreasonable verdict.

The court held that, although brief, the trial reasons disclosed no such errors.

It further held that the verdict was supported not only by eyewitness identification but also by circumstantial evidence placing the appellant at the scene at the relevant time.

The appeal was dismissed.

In a criminal conviction appeal, the self-represented appellant advised that he did not want counsel appointed to represent him but did not oppose the appointment of amicus curiae.

The court was informed that the appeal had previously been adjourned to permit preparation of the appeal book and consideration of whether amicus should be appointed.

The court appointed amicus curiae under s. 684 of the Criminal Code to assist on the appeal and adjourned the appeal to a date to be fixed by the registrar for further speaking to or hearing.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposing a 20-month conditional sentence for impaired driving causing death, arguing that the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to denunciation and general deterrence and erred in finding community safety could be protected.

The majority held that the sentencing judge carefully considered the offender’s psychiatric history, long abstinence, remorse, support structure, treatment compliance, and the statutory requirements for a conditional sentence.

Applying the appellate deference principles later articulated in the Supreme Court’s conditional sentence jurisprudence, the majority found no error in principle and no demonstrable unfitness.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and imposed 20 months’ incarceration, emphasizing the gravity of impaired driving causing death and the need for stronger external controls and denunciatory effect.