Leslie Maunder

The appellant appealed the custodial sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to give serious consideration to a conditional sentence, instead simply indicating a preference for a custodial sentence.

The appeal was allowed, and a 30-day conditional sentence was substituted.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, weapons dangerous, and mischief, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge's reasons were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal found the verdict was not unreasonable given the fingerprint evidence and the appellant's failure to testify.

However, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial because the trial judge's reasons were brief, conclusory, and failed to address significant frailties in the eyewitness identification evidence, rendering them inadequate under R. v. Sheppard.

The appellant appealed his conviction for break and enter and assault, and his sentence of 36 months.

He argued the trial judge failed to provide clear jury instructions regarding his defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury understood the defence position despite the lack of a precise legal label.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed because the trial judge misstated the standard of proof for aggravating factors.

The sentence was reduced to time served.

The appellant was convicted of possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

He appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that evidence of his demeanour upon arrest had no value in proving guilt or innocence.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the demeanour evidence was reasonably capable of supporting an inference favourable to the accused and should not have been taken away from the jury.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of the respondents on charges of conspiracy to break and enter and commit theft.

The trial judge had excluded surreptitiously intercepted communications under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the wiretap authorization breached s. 8 due to inaccurate information in the supporting affidavit.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in the threshold required to name a party in an authorization and in classifying the intercepted communications as conscriptive evidence.

A new trial was ordered for both respondents.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentences imposed on two black single mothers who pleaded guilty to importing cocaine.

The trial judge had introduced his own research on systemic racial and gender bias, concluding these factors mitigated their culpability and justified conditional sentences.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge overstepped his role by acting as advocate, witness, and judge, and erred in principle by imposing conditional sentences for a serious offence like importing cocaine.

Although the appropriate sentences would have been custodial terms of 20 months and two years less a day, the Court dismissed the appeal because the respondents had already served 17 months of their conditional sentences, and incarcerating them now would cause undue hardship.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and related offences arising from a home invasion.

The central issue at trial was eyewitness identification.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge's charge to the jury failed to adequately address the specific frailties of the identification evidence, including discrepancies in descriptions and failures to identify the appellant in photo line-ups.

The trial judge also erred in failing to properly review the defence evidence and in his application of section 24(2) of the Charter when admitting conscriptive evidence regarding the appellant's prior use of aliases.

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in crack cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime.

At trial, he admitted to being a drug dealer but denied selling to the undercover officer.

The trial judge failed to provide a limiting instruction to the jury regarding the appellant's admission that he was a drug dealer.

The Court of Appeal held that this failure constituted a reversible error, as there was a real risk the jury could infer guilt based solely on the admission.

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

The appellant appealed her conviction for importing 2.2 kilograms of cocaine, arguing the trial judge erred in finding she knew the drugs were concealed in the lid of her suitcase.

The appellant contended the trial judge made erroneous inferences regarding the weight of the suitcase lid and failed to consider circumstantial evidence supporting her lack of knowledge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence, including the physical exhibits, and that it was within the trial judge's purview to draw reasonable inferences from the strong circumstantial evidence of knowledge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for holding out, arguing the trial judge erred by relying on a police officer's testimony regarding slang terms as expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the testimony was properly admitted as the officer's lay understanding of a conversation to which he was a party.

This evidence, combined with the packaging and neighbourhood context, was sufficient to prove the charge.

The appellant appealed his sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred in characterizing the case as a breach of trust based on the backdating of a certificate of exemption.

This erroneous assumption improperly influenced the sentencing judge's decision that a conditional sentence was inappropriate and likely affected the quantum of the sentence.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to time served.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence relating to the complainant's injuries, after the fact conduct, and alleged prior employment at the complainant's convenience store.

The Crown cross-appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no misapprehension of evidence, noting the trial judge's analysis was comprehensive and supported by the record.

Both the appeal against conviction and the duelling sentence appeals were dismissed.

The Crown appealed the 12-month conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for an offence involving drinking and driving and fleeing the scene.

The Crown argued the trial judge displayed bias during the sentencing hearing and that a conditional sentence was unfit.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's comments inappropriate but not indicative of prejudgment.

Considering the fresh evidence that the respondent had complied with her sentence, abstained from alcohol, and completed rehabilitation, the Court held the conditional sentence was within the appropriate range and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his sentence, introducing fresh evidence of his concerted efforts at rehabilitation since his release on bail, including attending programs and relocating.

The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, noting that while the appellant committed a minor theft while on bail, his severe addiction meant rehabilitation would not always be linear.

The sentence was reduced to the fourteen months already served.

The dissenting judge would have dismissed the appeal, finding the new theft conviction belied the rehabilitation claims.

The young person appealed his conviction for importing cocaine.

He argued he was an unwilling dupe of his mother and did not know the drugs were in his suitcase.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were inadequate for failing to address this defence and for suggesting a reversal of the burden of proof.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

The young person appealed her convictions and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal regarding the trial judge's application of the W.(D.) test, finding the trial judge properly rejected the defence evidence as fabricated.

However, on consent, the court stayed the conviction for assault with a weapon as it arose from the same delict as the other charge.

On the sentence appeal, the court found the trial judge failed to consider the principles for young offenders.

While incarceration was necessary for general deterrence, the court reduced the sentence to time served (approximately one month) followed by 18 months of probation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing that the trial judge erred in summarizing the defence theory, admitting propensity evidence regarding handguns, instructing the jury on after-the-fact conduct, restricting cross-examination on polygraph tests, and charging the jury on first-degree murder.

The appellant also argued the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's instructions or evidentiary rulings, and concluding that a properly instructed jury could reasonably have rendered a verdict of first-degree murder based on the evidence of planning and deliberation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a procedural endorsement consolidating three appeals involving the respondents Hamilton, Mason, and Spencer.

On consent, the court granted leave to intervene to several organizations, including the African Canadian Legal Clinic, the Native Women's Association of Canada, and Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto.

The endorsement also established the timetable for perfecting the appeals, filing factums, and the allocation of time for oral arguments.

The Crown appealed the 20-month sentence (7 months plus 13 months pre-trial custody credit) imposed on the respondent for pointing a firearm, assault with a weapon, and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order.

The respondent had a lengthy criminal record, was on probation for harassing the victim, and was subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence demonstrably unfit, noting the serious facts and negative pre-sentence report.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was increased to three years (23 months going forward after credit).

The appellants were convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking following a police search of an apartment and a vehicle.

They appealed their convictions on several grounds, including the validity of the search warrant, jury instructions on the burden of proof (the W.(D.) instruction), and the reasonableness of the verdicts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the first appellant, finding the jury instructions adequate and the verdict reasonable based on the evidence found in his vehicle.

However, the Court allowed the appeal of the second appellant, concluding that the verdict was unreasonable as there was insufficient evidence connecting him to the drugs found in the apartment, especially given his acquittal on the trafficking charge.