Linda Shin

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal for aggravated sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in his mens rea analysis by requiring evidence of the complainant's communication of non-consent, which was irrelevant given that no defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent was raised.

This legal error materially impacted the acquittal.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, entered a conviction for aggravated sexual assault, and remitted the matter for sentencing before a different judge.

The appellant, Biao Zhou, appealed his conviction for sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The appeal raised multiple grounds, including errors in jury selection, a jury question, loss of juror notes, closing arguments, and jury instructions on post-offence conduct and consent.

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

The court addressed the trial judge's procedural error in allocating peremptory challenges, applying the curative proviso, and upheld decisions regarding juror impartiality and trial management.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction for breach of trust and his 18-month conditional sentence.

He had been acquitted of sexual assault involving the same complainant.

The appeal challenged the conviction on grounds of insufficient reasons, unreasonable verdict, and inconsistent verdicts, and the sentence on grounds of erroneous "double counting" of aggravating factors and insufficient reasons for rejecting a suspended sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficient, the verdict reasonable and reconcilable, and the sentence appropriate.

The appellant, Kevin Bacchus, appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, stemming from a physical altercation with the complainant.

The appeal raised three grounds: unreasonable verdict, misapprehension of evidence, and error in the use of an audio recording.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, affirming the trial judge's findings.

The court reiterated the high bar for unreasonable verdicts under the Beaudry/Sinclair error and found the alleged misapprehensions immaterial.

The sentence appeal was abandoned.

The appellant, John Jackman, appealed his conviction for manslaughter and his life sentence.

He was found guilty of manslaughter after setting fire to a mattress in a rooming house, which resulted in the death of another resident.

The main issues on appeal were the sufficiency of the trial judge's oral reasons for admitting similar act evidence (a prior arson conviction) and the fitness of the life sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge's oral reasons were brief, they were sufficient for review, and the admission of similar act evidence was proper.

The court also found the life sentence, though maximum, was warranted given the appellant's high moral blameworthiness, the context of the offence, and his extensive criminal record and high risk of re-offending.

The appeals against both conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The appellant, convicted of second-degree murder, appealed on the ground that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the defence of accident (unintended act).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the defence of accident did not have an air of reality based on the totality of the evidence, including witness testimony, video surveillance, and coroner's evidence, which contradicted the appellant's equivocal testimony.

The appellant, convicted of second-degree murder, appealed his conviction, alleging reversible misdirection in the jury instruction on after-the-fact conduct.

The appellant had dismembered and disposed of the victim's body after her death, which he claimed was due to an overdose, fearing police scrutiny.

The Court of Appeal found that the after-the-fact conduct evidence was relevant and admissible to infer unlawful causation of death and mens rea for murder.

The trial judge's instructions on drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence, including after-the-fact conduct, were deemed adequate.

The Court also found no reversible error in the absence of a specific "bad character" caution, given the direct connection of the conduct to the charge.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention at a high secure unit.

He sought a transfer to a less restrictive medium secure facility.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable given the appellant's continued threat to public safety, the unsuitability of other facilities due to risk management concerns and long waitlists, and recent aggressive incidents.

The court affirmed that reweighing evidence is not its role in reviewing Board decisions.

The appellant, Jerome Turner, appealed his conviction and sentence for five counts of armed robbery.

The appeal raised issues concerning the trial judge's similar fact evidence ruling, the admission of post-offence conduct evidence, and Section 8 Charter rulings regarding cellphone data obtained via production order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's application of the similar fact test, the admission of post-offence conduct evidence, or the Section 8 analysis.

The court also found the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, noting the appellant's prior criminal history and the timing of the offences.

Two paramedics were convicted of failing to provide the necessaries of life after misdiagnosing a fatal gunshot wound as a superficial BB gun injury and failing to transport the victim to a trauma hospital immediately.

The Crown sought a 2.5-year penitentiary sentence, arguing that uncharged offences like manslaughter should be considered aggravating factors.

The court rejected this argument, finding it fundamentally unfair since the Crown chose the specific charge.

Balancing the offenders' high moral blameworthiness for failing to follow their training against their lack of criminal records, positive community support, and the collateral consequences of their convictions, the court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence for each offender.

The accused paramedics were charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life to a 19-year-old gunshot victim.

Upon arriving at the scene, the accused failed to recognize the victim had suffered a penetrating wound to the abdomen, instead concluding he was experiencing a psychiatric issue and had been shot by a BB gun.

They delayed transport, performed inappropriate lifts, and failed to take the victim to a lead trauma hospital.

The court found their actions constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of reasonably trained paramedics, endangering the victim's life.

Both accused were found guilty.

The offender, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of assault for striking a young Black man in the face with a metal pipe while the victim was injured and seeking help.

The court emphasized the need for denunciation and general deterrence, noting the breach of public trust and the racialized context of the offence.

The offender was sentenced to 9 months in jail, followed by 12 months of probation, along with DNA, weapons prohibition, and non-communication orders.

Prior to the offender's sentencing, the Crown sought to file a community impact statement from the Black Action Defence Committee.

The defence objected to portions of the statement, arguing they exceeded the permissible scope under section 722.2 of the Criminal Code, and sought redactions.

The court held that while much of the statement provided necessary context regarding the impact of the offence on the Black community, two specific portions were irrelevant or inflammatory and required redaction.

The court otherwise declined to redact the statement, noting it would disregard any impermissible content.

The applicant, having been acquitted of aggravated assault but convicted of the lesser included offence of simple assault, applied to re-open the trial before sentencing.

The applicant argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to find him guilty of simple assault, asserting that aggravated assault under s. 268 of the Criminal Code does not contain a lesser included offence of assault.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to re-open the trial, emphasizing the principle of finality and noting the argument should have been raised during closing submissions.

The court also rejected the substantive argument, affirming that simple assault is a lesser included offence of aggravated assault.

The defendants, Michael and Christian Theriault, were charged with aggravated assault and attempting to obstruct justice following an altercation with Dafonte Miller, which resulted in Miller losing an eye.

The court found that Miller and his friends were "car hopping" and were caught by the Theriaults.

While the initial interaction and struggle were complex, the court found that Michael Theriault committed an unlawful assault when he struck Miller with a metal pipe after Miller was in retreat and seeking help.

The court found Michael Theriault not guilty of aggravated assault but guilty of the lesser included offense of assault.

Christian Theriault was found not guilty on both counts.

The charges of attempting to obstruct justice against both defendants were dismissed due to reasonable doubt regarding intent and the context of their statements to police.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of robbery, one count of use of an imitation firearm in the commission of an indictable offence, two counts of assault causing bodily harm, and one count of threatening to cause death, arising from violent robberies of two victims behind the Yorkdale Subway Station in Toronto.

The appellant received a global sentence of four years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence consisting of an expert forensic report authenticating Voxer App voicemail messages that would establish his absence from the scene of the robberies.

The Crown consented to the admission of the fresh evidence and conceded that the convictions amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault arising from a street altercation where he stabbed the complainant 13 times with a folding knife.

The trial judge granted a directed verdict of acquittal on a weapons possession charge.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) the trial judge erred in refusing a Scopelliti application to call a witness regarding the complainant's prior violent conduct while intoxicated and in restricting cross-examination on a prior peace bond; (2) the trial judge erred in dismissing a Corbett application to exclude evidence of the appellant's prior firearm conviction; and (3) the trial judge failed to inform the jury of the acquittal on the weapons charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for six offences committed during a shooting incident in Hamilton.

The trial judge imposed a total sentence of five years imprisonment before pre-sentence custody credit.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge committed material legal errors: (1) improperly reducing the sentence based on time served for related but distinct Thunder Bay offences; (2) imposing a concurrent rather than consecutive sentence for possession of a firearm while prohibited; and (3) considering irrelevant mitigating factors.

The Court allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of seven years for the discharging offence and one year consecutive for the firearm prohibition offence, resulting in a total sentence of eight years imprisonment.

An appellant found not criminally responsible for theft under $5,000 appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his continued detention at a forensic mental health facility.

The appellant argued there was no evidence he posed a significant risk of physical or psychological violence to the public, citing the absence of violent behaviour in recent years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the Board's finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety based on his mental health history, criminal record, aggressive behaviour in detention, resistance to treatment, risk assessment scores, and lack of insight into his condition.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering the continued detention of a not criminally responsible accused at Waypoint Mental Health Care.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, alternatively a transfer to another facility, or in the further alternative, an independent psychiatric assessment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the board's finding that the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety based on his extensive criminal history involving sexual violence, his psychiatric diagnoses including psychopathy, and his lack of engagement with treatment programs.

The court dismissed the appeal but directed the board to reconsider the request for an independent assessment at the next annual review.