Lorna Bolton

The appellant appealed a 14-year sentence imposed following guilty pleas to a series of violent offences against eight victims.

The sentence was based on a joint submission.

The appellant argued the sentence was harsh and excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant's lengthy criminal record, the viciousness of the assaults, attempts to obstruct justice, and the fact that the trial judge was bound to accept the joint submission unless it was contrary to the public interest.

The court found the sentence fit.

The appellant pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation and was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, he adduced fresh evidence that he was subject to a deportation order and had lost his right to appeal it because his sentence was two years or more.

The Court of Appeal found that while the original sentence was not unfit, the certainty of deportation to a country where he had no ties, combined with his rehabilitation and the fact he had nearly completed his sentence, justified reducing the sentence to two years less a day to preserve his right to appeal the deportation.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on charges of robbery, assault with a weapon, and uttering death threats.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred by excluding certain medical evidence due to alleged non-disclosure, refusing to allow the Crown to admit the accused's statement to police, and failing to correct improper comments made by defence counsel during the jury address.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in excluding the medical evidence and defence counsel made improper comments regarding wrongful convictions and the Crown's integrity, these errors did not render the trial unfair or necessarily affect the verdict.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a youth sentence but conceded the appeal was moot as it was no longer seeking a custodial disposition.

The Court of Appeal declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, finding it was largely fact-driven and not an exceptional case.

The appeal was dismissed for mootness.

The appellant appealed her sentence for dangerous driving causing bodily injury and failing to remain.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's six-year sentence for dangerous driving exceeded the Crown's requested maximum of five years and fell outside the acceptable range.

The appeal was allowed, reducing the dangerous driving sentence to four years (for a global sentence of five years) and the driving prohibition from sixteen years to eleven years.

The appellant appealed his convictions for uttering threats and assault, as well as his sentence of two years' imprisonment.

He argued the conviction for uttering threats was unreasonable because his father, the target of the threats, testified he was not afraid.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, noting other witnesses testified the appellant was loud, upset, and had been drinking, and the trial judge found the father was minimizing his evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was not unfit given the appellant's history and criminal record.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to seven years and one month imprisonment.

He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on self-defence under s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code, the interplay of self-induced intoxication, the application of W.(D.) principles to his police statements, and the exclusion of evidence regarding the deceased's prior argument.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit given the vicious and unrelenting nature of the attack.

Le demandeur, inculpé de fraude et d'entrave à la justice aux États-Unis pour avoir enlevé des cartons de documents, demande l'autorisation d'interjeter appel d'une ordonnance d'obtention rendue en vertu de la Loi sur l'entraide juridique en matière criminelle.

La Cour d'appel applique le critère de l'arrêt Ross et conclut que l'ordonnance d'obtention n'est qu'une étape préliminaire visant à préserver les documents avant l'audition de la requête en transmission.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel et la requête en suspension sont rejetées.

The Crown appealed the 15-month conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and flight from police causing bodily harm.

The Crown argued the trial judge misapprehended the length of the driving prohibition under the Highway Traffic Act and erred in imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal declined to interfere with the conditional sentence due to the Crown's delay in perfecting the appeal and a shift in its argument without notice.

However, the Court imposed an additional two-year driving prohibition to match the trial judge's intended disposition.

The young person appealed a conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapplied the W.(D.) principles regarding credibility and reasonable doubt.

The trial judge had convicted the appellant on the basis that the complainant withdrew her initial consent to sexual intercourse, but the appellant continued the sexual activity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the entirety of the evidence, including inconsistencies and corroborating evidence such as bruising, and made a credibility assessment that was open to him.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the resulting sentence.

He argued that the trial judge made four significant errors in his instructions to the jury, including failing to address the defence theory of fabrication regarding delayed disclosure, misstating the evidence about when the appellant asked for intercourse, giving confusing instructions on consent related to age difference, and introducing undefined legal terms during a re-charge.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the cumulative effect of these deficiencies in the jury charge warranted setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board which found he continued to pose a significant risk to the public and ordered his detention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample medical evidence to support the Board's determination regarding the appellant's harassing behaviour.

The majority held that the Board's conditions for detention and its decision not to order a transfer to another facility were reasonable.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Board to explore less restrictive placements.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 54 months for offences including kidnapping, robbery, and extortion of an 84-year-old woman.

He argued the trial judge erred in calculating pre-trial custody credit by treating 13.5 months spent in custody as time served on a conditional sentence rather than pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the breach hearing was delayed at the appellant's instance and the sentence was lenient given the gravity of the offences.

The Court also noted the trial judge erred in referring to 'vengeance' in sentencing, but this did not render the sentence unfit.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

On consent, the Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial on one count.

Based on fresh evidence, the court allowed the sentence appeal on the remaining counts and varied the sentences to time served, finding no basis to reincarcerate the appellant.

The appellant appealed his criminal conviction, arguing issue estoppel regarding his presence at the incident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish the foundation for issue estoppel and that it was open to the trial judge to conclude he was present at the incident.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for firearms offences.

Police found the appellant asleep behind the wheel of a running vehicle and opened the unlocked door, smelling alcohol and subsequently discovering two loaded handguns.

The appellant argued this violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal held that even if opening the door constituted a s. 8 breach, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) as the breach was not serious, the appellant had a diminished expectation of privacy, and the evidence was necessary for serious charges.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit given the appellant's prior record and possession of loaded semi-automatic handguns.

The appellant was convicted of extortion after demanding money and a vehicle from a family member who had sexually abused the appellant's children.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on his alcohol consumption.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no air of reality to the intoxication defence.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed because the sentencing judge erred in finding the appellant was unemployed.

Given the appellant's role as the sole financial provider and caregiver for his family, the custodial sentence was reduced to time served.

The appellant was convicted of uttering a threat to cause death to his former partner.

His summary conviction appeal was dismissed.

On further appeal, he argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence of the complainant's father, which affected the core of the reasoning process.

The Court of Appeal held that while the trial judge did misapprehend a portion of the father's testimony, the error did not affect the core of the reasoning.

The trial judge had already accepted the complainant's evidence and rejected the appellant's version based on credibility findings.

The appeal was dismissed.