Martin Heslop

The appellant challenged a second degree murder conviction arising from a targeted fatal stabbing proved primarily by circumstantial identification evidence, including surveillance video, shoe DNA evidence, clothing evidence, vehicle evidence, and recognition evidence from a recanting witness.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did misapprehend the defence position by stating that all parties agreed the appellant was not the driver of the van, but found the misapprehension immaterial because the conviction rested on affirmative circumstantial evidence identifying the appellant as the stabber.

The court rejected arguments based on Villaroman, insufficient reasons, and unreasonable verdict doctrine, holding that the proposed innocent inferences were speculative and that the reasons, read functionally in context, clearly rejected the blood-transference theory.

The court also upheld the limited reliance placed on the recanting witness's recognition evidence after proper Vetrovec and Hudson analysis.

The appellant challenged convictions for sexual assault and assault with choking on the basis that recordings secretly made by the complainant should have been excluded under ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The court held that the complainant was not a state agent when she made the recordings because there had been no police contact, direction, or inducement at the time, and her purpose did not alone transform her into a state actor.

The court further held that, although the appellant had a subjective privacy interest in the intimate conversations, he did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in recordings lawfully made by a participant and voluntarily provided to police in support of criminal allegations.

In the alternative, even if there had been a s. 8 breach, the recordings would have been admitted under s. 24(2) because the law was unsettled, the police acted in good faith, and the evidence was reliable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson, appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention at a psychiatric hospital.

The Board found that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, ongoing substance abuse, and history of relapses leading to acute psychosis and violence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's decision was reasonable, internally coherent, and well-supported by the psychiatric evidence.

The Crown appealed from a summary conviction appeal court decision that quashed the respondent's conviction for sexual assault and entered an acquittal.

The SCAC judge found the verdict unreasonable and the trial judge's reasons insufficient due to frail identification evidence, which consisted of an in-dock identification over Zoom four years after the incident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the trial judge failed to meaningfully consider the reliability of the identification evidence and that no reasonable jury could convict on the evidence.

The appellant was convicted of possession of a loaded, chambered, prohibited handgun found in his one-bedroom condominium during the execution of a search warrant.

He appealed both conviction and sentence.

On the conviction appeal, the appellant argued misapprehension of evidence and unreasonable verdict, contending that his brother or a third party may have placed the firearm in the unit.

The Court of Appeal held these submissions amounted to speculative inferences unsupported by the evidentiary record and dismissed the conviction appeal.

On the sentence appeal, the court found no error in principle in the 20-month custodial sentence, holding it was restrained, consistent with parity, and appropriately reflected the aggravating circumstances of a loaded firearm in a residential building.

The appellant was convicted of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, and sexual assault against his stepdaughter beginning when she was 15 years old, with violations occurring over approximately 20 months.

The trial judge relied heavily on an audio recording surreptitiously captured by the complainant in her bedroom on November 3, 2019.

The appellant appealed on grounds that the trial judge unfairly amplified the audio recording during deliberations, misapprehended its contents, misapprehended evidence relating to chronology of events, erred in assessing credibility of both the complainant and appellant, and misused a prior consistent statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no trial fairness issues, no misapprehension of evidence, and no credibility errors.

The appellant, Qalid Abderezak, appealed a 12-year sentence for robbery and firearms offences, arguing that the sentence was unreasonably disparate compared to a co-accused, Zakariye Yousuf, who received a 10-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge’s analysis, noting the different roles and culpability of the offenders and the deferential standard of review for sentencing decisions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Ernest Clayton’s appeal from a Review Board disposition finding him unfit and “permanently unfit” to stand trial.

The court held that the Board failed to apply the fitness test contextually, as required by law, and did not consider relevant evidence about the simplicity of the charges and Clayton’s ability to understand and respond to them.

The Board’s finding of permanent unfitness was also unsupported by sufficient reasons.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted Board for a new determination of fitness.

This decision concerns an appeal by Iesha Mitchell from a detention order imposed by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had found that, although Mitchell could live in the community with certain privileges, her housing required approval by the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), and that the Mental Health Act alone would not be sufficient to manage her risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board’s reasoning, holding that the evidence supported the need for approved housing and a detention order, given the subtlety of Mitchell’s decompensation and the need for prompt intervention.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Hang Shi, appealed his conviction for aggravated assault arising from an incident in which his wife sustained significant injuries after a parking lot altercation.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in any of the grounds of appeal, holding that the trial judge properly assessed the reliability of the bystander’s eyewitness testimony, which was corroborated by Mr. Shi’s own text messages.

The court also found no error in the application of the burden of proof or in the treatment of after-the-fact conduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, A.K.H., appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended key evidence regarding photographic exhibits of the complainant’s injuries and the appellant’s statements in a post-incident conversation.

These misapprehensions were material and essential to the trial judge’s reasoning and credibility assessments, warranting a new trial.

The court rejected the appellant’s second ground of appeal regarding the trial judge’s assessment of motive to fabricate.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review a motion judge's decision dismissing his request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal for convictions in 2020 and 2022.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's application of the test for an extension of time, noting the lack of evidence of an intention to appeal within the timeline and the lack of an adequate explanation for the delay.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant, a 19-year-old first-time offender, pled guilty to possessing a loaded prohibited handgun for a dangerous purpose after brandishing it during an altercation.

The sentencing judge imposed a four-year penitentiary sentence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred by breaching the appellant's right to be heard regarding his intent to shoot, and by overlooking principles governing the sentencing of youthful first-time offenders, family separation consequences, and multiple offences arising from the same circumstances.

The appeal was allowed and a three-year sentence was substituted.

David Grant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for harassment and breach of peace bond due to bipolar disorder and delusions, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition.

The Board denied his request for an absolute discharge, continuing his detention with privileges at a forensic mental health care centre, and imposing contact restrictions.

Grant argued the Board unreasonably found he posed a significant public threat, lacking evidence for a foreseeable and substantial risk of serious criminal offence if discharged.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the Board's expertise and finding its risk assessment reasonable, given Grant's continued delusions, cannabis use exacerbating his condition, and consistent fixation on the victim, concluding he would likely re-engage in criminal behaviour without supervision.