Lorna Lynn Bolton

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.