Mabel Lai

The appellant challenged convictions arising from charges including attempt to obstruct justice, threatening bodily harm, and breach of recognizance.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because they did not explain how material inconsistencies and confusion in the complainant's evidence were resolved to the criminal standard.

Applying the Supreme Court's sufficiency-of-reasons framework, the court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on all three counts.

The ineffective assistance of counsel ground, based on the decision whether the appellant should testify, was rejected on the fresh evidence record.

The appellant challenged convictions for historical sexual offences against his children, arguing inadequate reasons, misapprehension of evidence, unreasonable verdicts, and an unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was alive to inconsistencies in the complainants’ evidence, gave reasoned credibility findings, and properly applied the criminal burden of proof in rejecting the defence evidence.

Deference was owed to the trial judge’s credibility assessments, and none of the alleged conflicts or inconsistencies undermined the verdicts.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the eight-year global sentence was within range and upheld.

The appellant challenged sentence following convictions for robbery and disguise with intent to rob.

The Court of Appeal held there was no ambiguity in the sentence, finding the trial judge clearly fixed a seven-year total sentence, granted 12 months' credit for pre-trial custody, and imposed consecutive component sentences.

Given the very serious nature of the offences, the sentence was upheld despite the appellant's youth.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in a secure unit.

He sought an absolute discharge, conditional discharge, or transfer to a general unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that an ongoing six-month review by the Board would soon provide a decision based on current medical information.

However, the Court emphasized the Board's obligation to properly determine whether the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety and expressed deep concern over the hospital's delay in transferring the appellant to the secure unit as ordered.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered a secure placement with supervised access to the community.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the disposition and dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant's recent transfer to medium security was a promising development for her next hearing.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that the gas company's conduct broke the chain of causation between his tampering with a gas meter and the subsequent explosion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant altered the meter and that his actions were a substantial contributing cause of the explosion.

The court also rejected the admission of fresh evidence, finding it immaterial.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was firmly rooted in the evidence, reasonable, untainted by legal error, and did not constitute a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed sexual assault convictions arising from allegations involving children within a family household and argued, among other things, that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to credibility, failed to resolve testimonial inconsistencies, and relied on a critical factual finding without permitting response.

The court held that the reasons disclosed no unbalanced scrutiny, that the trial judge adequately addressed inconsistencies and explained which portions of the evidence were accepted or rejected, and that any inconsistency concerning the timing of a child’s birth was immaterial.

The court also rejected the fresh evidence application because the corrected birthdate would not have affected the trial result.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 24 months' imprisonment and probation for multiple counts of robbery, unlawful confinement, and related offences arising from an armed robbery at a grocery store.

The appellant argued his sentence was disproportionate compared to similar cases.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held the sentence was not manifestly unfit, noting the serious aggravating factors including planning, multiple perpetrators, and the use of an imitation machine gun.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the Crown's improper cross-examination rendered the trial unfair.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the Crown improperly and repeatedly cross-examined the appellant about his co-accuseds' motives to fabricate their testimony.

The trial judge failed to provide an adequate correcting instruction and instead reinforced the improper questioning in his summary of the evidence.

As credibility and identification were central to the case, the court found an appearance of unfairness and inferred actual prejudice.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant, a 20-year-old at the time of the offence, appealed his sentence.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding a question of law regarding whether the sentencing judge considered if a conditional discharge would serve the public interest.

Noting the appellant's positive post-offence conduct, including compensating the victim, complying with probation, and successfully completing two years of medical school, the Court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to a conditional discharge.

The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery and firearms offences arising from a home invasion.

He appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by denying him the standard 2:1 credit for pre-sentence custody based on his breach of weapons prohibition orders.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred by imposing an unjustified double penalty for the breach of prohibition orders, the ultimate sentence of approximately 11 years was fit and within the jointly submitted range.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, uttering a death threat, and breaking and entering, which arose from a domestic dispute with his former spouse.

He argued the trial judge erred by excluding evidence of a telephone conversation under section 11 of the Canada Evidence Act and by improperly assessing the complainant's credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's discretionary exclusion of the evidence due to lack of compliance with section 11, nor any error in the credibility assessment that would render the verdict unreasonable.

The appellant appealed his sentence, introducing a Gladue report as fresh evidence to provide context regarding his Aboriginal background.

The Court of Appeal considered the fresh evidence and the appellant's rehabilitative efforts but found no error in principle in the trial judge's reasons.

The trial judge had already rejected a penitentiary sentence in favour of a reformatory sentence with probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, concluding the sentence was fit and fully reflected the principles mandated by Gladue and Ipeelee.

The appellant pleaded guilty to offences committed before the Truth in Sentencing Act came into force, but was charged after it came into force.

The trial judge applied the Act, limiting pre-sentence custody credit to 1.5 days for each day served.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Act should not apply retrospectively to offences committed before its enactment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 5 of the Act clearly displaces the presumption against retrospectivity by explicitly applying to persons charged after the Act came into force.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 12 months' incarceration and two years' probation for multiple offences, including forcible entry, assault causing bodily harm, and uttering death threats.

He argued the sentence was harsh, failed to adequately apply the Gladue analysis, and violated the jump principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's application of Gladue or the jump principle, and concluding the sentence was fit and within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, arguing the verdict was unreasonable due to insufficient evidence linking him to the attempted carjacking and establishing the weapon was a real firearm.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the appellant was a party to the robbery, but found insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was real.

The appeal was allowed in part, substituting a conviction for robbery and reducing the sentence to 12 months' imprisonment.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in a Secure Forensic Unit with the possibility of transfer to a General Forensic Unit.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence showing the appellant had absented himself from the hospital for four months before surrendering the day before the appeal hearing.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence of elopement and the resulting flight risk concerns were sufficient to sustain the Board's hybrid disposition, while urging an expedited fresh review by the Board.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to consider his evidence and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge accepted the appellant's evidence about the ten-second episode but concluded that by deliberately showing off and squealing his tires, the appellant left himself too little time to correct his accidental acceleration.

The findings were open to the trial judge on the record.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that rejected the treatment team's recommendation to allow him to live in approved community accommodation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety, but found the Board's rejection of the community living condition unreasonable.

The evidence showed the appellant received medication by bi-weekly injection and could be adequately monitored in the community.

The appeal was allowed and the Board's order was replaced with the hospital's recommendation.