Marc Rosenberg

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable because the events as described by the complainant were mechanically impossible and could not have occurred without her waking up earlier.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the complainant's version of events was not implausible, especially given that she had been drinking before falling asleep.

The court concluded that the trial judge's finding of sexual assault was not unreasonable.

The accused chiropractor was charged with sexually assaulting a patient.

The trial judge stayed the proceedings due to a 16-month delay, finding a breach of the accused's s. 11(b) Charter rights.

The summary conviction appeal court overturned the stay, finding the trial judge erred in assessing prejudice and institutional delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the accused's appeal, holding that the 12-month institutional delay was not unreasonable given the seriousness of the charge and the accused's failure to take steps to expedite the trial.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay charges of attempted murder and aggravated assault against the respondents due to a 51-month delay from arrest to trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in his assessment of the inherent time requirements of the case, particularly regarding a recanting witness and inaccurate time estimates for the preliminary inquiry.

The Court concluded that the delay, while lengthy, did not violate the respondents' s. 11(b) Charter rights given the minimal prejudice suffered and society's interest in a trial on the merits.

The stay was set aside and a trial ordered.

The Crown appealed a decision quashing a search warrant executed at a physiotherapy clinic during an insurance fraud investigation.

The application judge had ruled that the issuing justice of the peace lacked jurisdiction because the warrant did not include special post-seizure conditions to protect the privacy of patients' medical records.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 487 of the Criminal Code adequately balances state and privacy interests.

The Court found no principled basis to engraft mandatory common law conditions onto the statutory scheme for the seizure of non-privileged medical records.

The parties separated after a ten-year traditional marriage.

The separation agreement provided for time-limited spousal support and child support.

The father's income subsequently increased substantially, and the parties' son moved in with the father while the daughter remained with the mother.

The father drafted an amending agreement reducing child support, which the mother signed without financial disclosure or independent legal advice.

The mother later applied to vary spousal and child support, seeking retroactive increases.

The trial judge increased support but declined to make it retroactive to the date the father's income increased.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, increasing the quantum of spousal support to reflect the mother's economic disadvantage and making the child support increase retroactive due to the father's financial non-disclosure and blameworthy conduct.

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of his wife.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, alleging the appellant raped and murdered the deceased.

On appeal, the appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable based on medical evidence regarding the time of death, and challenged the admissibility of expert evidence concerning genital injuries and a blood letter written in Chinese characters.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the verdict was reasonable as the medical evidence did not exonerate the appellant, and the expert evidence was properly admitted.

The appellant was convicted of tax evasion under s. 239(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act and fined $29,210.

He appealed his conviction, arguing he lacked the necessary mens rea because he honestly believed he was a 'natural person of commoner status' not subject to the Act, and that his representation by an agent at trial caused a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a mistaken belief about the application of a statute is a mistake of law that does not negate mens rea.

The court also found no miscarriage of justice regarding his representation, as he made an informed choice and there was no evidence that a lawyer would have changed the outcome.

The respondent was convicted by a jury of fraudulently obtaining GST refunds.

Prior to sentencing, the trial judge declared a mistrial, finding that the Crown's failure to preserve the respondent's employment records amounted to an abuse of process and a breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to declare a mistrial after the jury's verdict had been recorded.

The matter was remitted to the trial judge for sentencing.

The respondents failed to pay property taxes on their family farm, leading the appellant township to initiate a tax sale under the Municipal Tax Sales Act.

After tenders were opened but before the tax deed was registered, the respondents offered to pay the full cancellation price.

The municipal treasurer refused, believing she had no discretion to cancel the sale once tenders were opened.

The application judge cancelled the tax sale, finding the treasurer failed to exercise her discretion under s. 12(6) of the Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that a municipal treasurer retains the discretion to cancel a tax sale at any time up to the registration of the tax deed.

The appellants appealed a decision granting the respondents relief from forfeiture and cancelling a municipal tax sale of their farm.

The respondents had failed to pay property taxes, and the township initiated a tax sale.

After tenders were opened but before the sale was finalized, the respondents offered to pay the full cancellation price.

The municipal treasurer refused, believing she had no discretion to cancel the sale once tenders were opened.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under subsection 12(6) of the Municipal Tax Sales Act, the treasurer retains the discretion to cancel a tax sale at any time up to the registration of the tax deed.

The appellants were convicted of second degree murder for stabbing a plainclothes police officer to steal his vehicle.

They appealed their convictions, arguing that the Crown's failure to disclose that two other surveillance officers were drinking outside the jurisdiction during the incident violated their right to full disclosure and constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the undisclosed information would not have affected the trial's fairness or the credibility of the responding officer.

The Court also dismissed the sentence appeals, upholding parole ineligibility periods of 16 and 18 years due to the need to denounce the murder of an on-duty police officer and the appellants' violent criminal records.

The appellant appealed the conditions of his one-year conditional sentence and three-year probation order for assault causing bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal upheld the strict house arrest condition but found the restriction on family visits unreasonable, varying it to allow weekend visits with his daughter.

The court also varied the probation order to remove several conditions, including the requirement to abstain from alcohol.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant appealed his conviction and 18-month sentence for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing to declare a mistrial based on an alleged breach of his section 14 Charter right to an interpreter, and that the trial judge overemphasized general deterrence in sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably gave no weight to a hearsay affidavit regarding the interpreter issue, and that the sentence was within the appropriate range with no error in principle.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering her continued confinement in a hospital.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding an adequate evidentiary basis for the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk of dangerousness due to her mental illness, personality disorder, and history of medication non-compliance.

However, the Court noted a lack of evidence regarding community management and medication supervision, expressing hope that these issues would be explored at the next hearing.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Ontario Court (General Division).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit and noting unanimous opinions that there was a significant risk the appellant would reoffend.

The appellant pleaded guilty to trafficking one gram of marijuana and appealed his sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that despite the appellant's terrible criminal record, the sentence had to be proportionate to the offence under s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code.

Leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to time served.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder of his wife.

At trial, the Crown introduced hearsay evidence consisting of a letter written by the deceased to her cousin and statements made by the deceased to her family physician, both alleging prior assaults by the appellant.

The trial judge admitted the evidence under the principled approach to hearsay.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in admitting the hearsay statements, as he improperly relied on the truth of the contents to establish threshold reliability and erroneously concluded there was no motive to fabricate.

The Court also found that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the mens rea for murder under s. 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code by using the word 'danger' instead of 'likelihood' of death.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellants appealed a decision refusing to set aside an order dismissing their action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's application of the usual test for setting aside a dismissal order, nor in the findings that the appellants failed to adequately explain their delay and that the respondents would suffer prejudice.

The Crown appealed directed verdicts of acquittal for first and second-degree murder.

The respondents had been convicted of manslaughter and forcible confinement after participating in the beating and confinement of the victim, who was left bound in a remote cabin and subsequently died.

The trial judge ruled there was no evidence of the requisite intent for murder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge impermissibly weighed the evidence and usurped the jury's function.

The Court held there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent, planning, and deliberation to leave the murder charges to the jury, and ordered a new trial on first-degree murder.

The appellant appealed from an order of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown agreed that the appeal must be allowed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the charge.