Lilly Gates

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible, appealed a Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention at a secure forensic psychiatric unit.

The appellant argued that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and that the detention order was not the least onerous disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by evidence from a psychological risk assessment and the treating psychiatrist, which indicated a continued moderate-to-high risk of violent recidivism and a need for a gradual transition into the community.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Stephen Young’s appeal from his convictions for sexual assault and forcible confinement, as well as his sentence appeal.

The court found that the trial judge’s credibility findings were entitled to deference and that the trial judge had properly addressed the evidentiary and credibility issues raised by the appellant.

The sentence of 5.5 years less presentence custody was found not to be unfit.

The appeal is subject to a publication ban under s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the sentence of a young person, G.D., who committed serious offences at ages 15 and 16 and was sentenced as a youth at age 19.

The court reviewed fresh evidence of rehabilitation and determined that transferring G.D. to an adult correctional facility would undermine his progress.

The court set aside part of the custodial sentence and probation order, substituting shorter custody and a longer probation period, in the interests of justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Aris Saha’s conviction and sentence appeals for sexual assault.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s analysis of consent, including her treatment of the complainant’s alleged statement about “liking it rough” and her assessment of the evidence regarding subjective consent.

The court also upheld the 12-month custodial sentence, finding it was not demonstrably unfit and that the trial judge properly considered the available sentencing options and relevant factors.

The appellant, Baba Ouedraogo, appealed the imposition of a long-term supervision order following convictions for two serious sexual assaults on strangers.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the sentencing judge’s assessment, including expert evidence, justified the long-term offender designation and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm and his designation and sentence as a dangerous offender.

He argued the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the defence theory and erred in finding his conduct intractable for the dangerous offender designation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge was adequate and there was ample evidence of a repetitive pattern of intimate partner violence to support the dangerous offender designation and the resulting seven-year sentence with a ten-year long term supervision order.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, appealed a conditional discharge from the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's reasoning for determining a 'significant threat to public safety' insufficient, particularly regarding the appellant's medication compliance and post-discharge support.

The court set aside the Board's disposition and ordered a re-hearing before a new panel.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal argued the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the sole defense witness.

The sentence appeal sought a conditional sentence instead of the imposed custodial term.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's credibility assessment, noting the deference owed.

Regarding the sentence, the court upheld the custodial term, emphasizing the serious nature of the offence, which involved the appellant pointing a gun at his son and wife and threatening to kill them.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for offences related to a shooting incident where shots were fired at a parked truck.

The case against the appellant was circumstantial, with key issues at trial being perpetrator identification, timing of the shots, and the continuity of firearm and shell-casing exhibits.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the continuity of shell casings.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was clearly aware of and addressed the continuity arguments, and was not required to refer to every aspect of the evidence in his reasons.

The court also rejected the argument that the verdict was unreasonable, as it was dependent on the continuity argument which was dismissed.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant, N.C., appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's reasons for rejecting the appellant's credibility were insufficient and conclusory, failing to provide an adequate explanation for perceived inconsistencies in testimony.

Furthermore, the trial judge erred by not explicitly addressing the mens rea requirement of the sexual assault offence, having only found that the actus reus was proven.

The court emphasized the necessity for trial judges to provide comprehensive reasons that allow for proper appellate review of all elements of an offence.

The appellant, M.O., appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and break and enter.

The core issue on appeal was whether the trial judge gave undue weight to the complainant's videotaped statement, entered under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code, based on a misinterpretation of R. v. F. (C.C.).

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's reference to F. (C.C.)'s statement about a videotape reflecting a "more accurate recollection" was made in the context of explaining the purpose of s. 715.1, not to assign undue weight.

The Court concluded that the trial judge properly assessed the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies, and found her credible and reliable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a young person, appealed convictions for sexual assault and uttering death threats, arguing the trial judge's reasons were insufficient due to a failure to address material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and a potential motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge's reasons did not permit meaningful appellate review as they failed to grapple with critical credibility issues.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, D.G., appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The trial judge had found significant credibility issues with the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies and missing journals, but still convicted.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons inadequate for failing to explain how he could believe the complainant's evidence despite these identified credibility problems.

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

This is a Crown appeal from sentence.

The respondent was convicted of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and two counts of breaching weapons prohibition orders.

The sentencing judge imposed a six-year sentence, with concurrent sentences for the breach offences, and failed to impose a mandatory lifetime firearm prohibition.

The Crown argued the sentence was unfit, concurrent sentences were an error, and aggravating factors were not given effect.

The Court of Appeal granted leave, imposed the mandatory lifetime firearm prohibition, and ordered the sentences for the breach offences to be served consecutively to each other and to the firearm offence sentence, correcting errors in principle.

Allison Dent appealed her conviction for publishing defamatory libel against Troy Lalonde, arguing the verdict was unreasonable due to misapprehensions of evidence and erroneous "profile" analysis.

The Crown cross-appealed her sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's decision reasonable and solidly grounded in evidence, despite a conceded error regarding an adopted admission by silence which was deemed harmless.

The Court granted leave to appeal the sentence, finding the trial judge erred by giving undue weight to the impact of incarceration on the appellant's child and failing to adequately consider denunciation and deterrence for a "worst-case example" of criminal defamation.

The Court substituted the conditional sentence with a two-year less a day term of incarceration.

The appellant, V.K., appealed his convictions for sexual assault and assault against his ex-wife and two counts of assault against his daughter, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient and failed to apply the test from R. v. W.(D.).

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the unorthodox delivery, the trial judge's reasons revealed a clear basis for conviction, demonstrating an understanding and application of the W.(D.) principles.

The court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings, which were based on a holistic assessment of the evidence, including the consistent testimony of the daughter and the partial reliability of the appellant's own evidence.

The appellant appealed a disposition from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordering his transfer from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to the High Secure Forensic Program at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant argued the transfer was not the least onerous or restrictive alternative and that the Board erred by failing to address a "treatment impasse" particularly concerning his aversion to clozapine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the ORB's conclusion that the transfer was "necessary and appropriate" to manage public safety risk and meet the appellant's needs.

The court also found no evidence of a treatment impasse before the Board that would warrant intervention.

The appellant, A.J.D., appealed his conviction for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault involving a child complainant.

The appeal raised two main issues: whether the trial judge erred in foreclosing re-examination on the appellant's intellectual disability, and whether the trial judge and Crown improperly relied on the complainant's undisclosed diary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge did not err in his treatment of re-examination, as the defence was permitted to raise the issue and the judge reasonably exercised discretion in not considering it further due to lack of supporting evidence.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's use of the diary, which was treated as narrative evidence, and concluded that any improper use by the Crown did not affect the trial's outcome or overall fairness.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault arising from events that occurred after he and the complainant separated from a group during an early morning walk following a party.

He argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence, improperly relied on neutral circumstantial evidence as confirmatory, and engaged in uneven scrutiny when assessing the parties’ credibility.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge carefully considered inconsistencies in the complainant’s evolving accounts and appropriately relied on corroborating medical and circumstantial evidence, including DNA evidence and observations of the complainant’s physical condition after the incident.

The court concluded that the trial judge’s credibility findings were reasonably supported by the evidence and disclosed no reversible error.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The applicant, H.K., sought release pending appeal of his 10-month imprisonment sentence.

The court found that the appeal, particularly concerning the sentence, met the "not frivolous" test.

It was noted that denying release would likely render the sentence appeal moot, as the applicant would serve the custodial portion of his sentence before the appeal could be heard.

The court granted the application for release pending appeal and imposed a publication ban.