Manasvin Goswami

The appellant sought an order for the production of lockdown records from the Toronto South Detention Centre for use in his sentence appeal.

The respondent consented to the order under s. 683(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, reserving the right to challenge the admissibility of the records as fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the interests of justice warranted the order and directed the production of the specified records.

The appellant, who pleaded guilty to bank robbery, appealed the four-year sentence imposed by the trial judge, seeking a three-year sentence.

The appellant argued the sentencing hearing was fundamentally unfair due to the lack of an adjournment for a presentence report, despite his strong objection to any delay.

The Court of Appeal found no unfairness, noting the appellant's desire for immediate sentencing, his criminal record including prior bank robberies, and the trial judge's consideration of mitigating factors such as an early guilty plea and mental health issues.

The court concluded the four-year sentence was fit and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for offences arising from a home invasion robbery.

He argued the trial judge failed to properly analyze circumstantial evidence and contradictions in the victim's testimony, and erred in principle during sentencing by confusing the roles of the assailants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdicts reasonable and supported by the totality of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 6.5-year sentence was fit given the appellant's prior record and the aggravating nature of home invasions, though the assault conviction was conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault against his wife.

The trial judge accepted the complainant's evidence that the appellant punched her in the face, breaking her jaw, and rejected the appellant's claim that she fell down the stairs while intoxicated.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in her credibility findings, including relying on the lack of blood on the stairs and the absence of other bodily injuries without expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's inferences were based on common sense and available on the record.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that denied his request for an absolute discharge and continued his conditional discharge.

The appellant argued the Board misapprehended evidence regarding his medication compliance and imposed an unreasonable disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while there was a minor factual error, it was not material to the Board's analysis.

The Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable and justified given the appellant's lack of insight, history of substance abuse, and risk of future harm.

The Crown appealed an acquittal in a child pornography case where the trial judge excluded evidence obtained through a search warrant.

The trial judge found the warrant was invalid because police failed to verify information from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) report for accuracy, failed to include a disclaimer from the NCMEC report, failed to confirm Microsoft's use of PhotoDNA software, and found the information stale despite only seven to eight months having elapsed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and entered a conviction, finding the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard by requiring verification for accuracy rather than assessing reasonableness, and erred in substituting her own views for those of the issuing justice.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault and his 40-month sentence.

He was self-represented at trial and argued that the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge failed to provide adequate assistance, rendering the trial unfair.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence overwhelming and that the trial judge provided extensive assistance to the self-represented appellant.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as the 40-month sentence fell within the appropriate range for aggravated assault given the appellant's criminal record.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon following an incident on July 23, 2014, where she stabbed and bit the complainant with scissors.

The appellant was acquitted on the count of unlawful entry.

On appeal, the appellant raised three grounds: (1) that the trial judge failed to consider her defence of lawful ejection of trespassers under s. 35 of the Criminal Code; (2) that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of her discreditable conduct; and (3) that her assault convictions conflicted with her acquittal on the unlawful entry count.

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

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention order under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the Board applied the wrong legal test and failed to meaningfully consider whether a conditional discharge would adequately protect the public.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly considered the statutory requirements, including the safety of the public and the reintegration of the accused into society, and that the Board's decision to continue the detention order was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed her sentence of nine months in custody for fraud over $5,000 and attempted fraud under $5,000.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in principle by overemphasizing general deterrence and denunciation while underemphasizing individual deterrence and rehabilitation, which are critical sentencing principles for youthful first offenders.

The court also found error in treating the appellant's decision to proceed to trial as an aggravating factor.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced to a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The appellant was convicted of internet luring of a person he believed to be under 16 years of age contrary to s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code and transmitting sexually explicit material to a person he believed to be under 16 years contrary to s. 171.1(1)(b).

The latter count was conditionally stayed on the basis of R. v. Kienapple.

The appellant was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and three years' probation, along with ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly analyzed the evidence and rejected the appellant's testimony as unworthy of belief.

On the sentence appeal, the Court set aside the victim surcharge but upheld the weapons prohibition as mandatory under s. 109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering her detention on the secure forensic unit at Providence Care Hospital, Kingston.

The appellant, who suffers from schizoaffective disorder with persecutory delusions, sought an absolute discharge, or alternatively a conditional discharge or transfer to CAMH.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's determination that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety was reasonable, and that a conditional discharge was premature given the ongoing nature of her delusions and the need for medication optimization.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by the Ontario Court of Justice on charges involving a sexual offense.

The appeal raised three grounds: whether the trial judge failed to resolve conflicts in evidence regarding the timing of a disclosure narrative, whether the trial judge erroneously conflated the absence of evidence of motive to fabricate with a proven absence of motive, and whether the trial judge subjected the appellant's evidence to a higher level of scrutiny than the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three grounds of appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons provided adequate insight into her credibility findings, that there was no erroneous conflation regarding motive, and that there was no material misapprehension of evidence or improper credibility assessment.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a summary conviction appeal dismissal.

The appellant had been acquitted of impaired driving but convicted of refusal to provide a breath sample.

The appellant argued the conviction was unreasonable based on inconsistency with the acquittal, misapprehension of expert evidence, and the trial judge's independent research.

The Court of Appeal found no error by the summary conviction appeal judge and dismissed the application for leave to appeal, holding that the proposed appeal did not meet the test for leave as it raised no legal issues of significance to the general administration of justice.