Matthew John Richard Asma

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for robbery.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on similar fact evidence from two other convenience store robberies.

He also argued the trial judge erred in sentencing by failing to enhance pre-sentence credit for lack of earned remission, using probation breaches to infer resistance to rehabilitation, and imposing a consecutive sentence for breach of probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's analysis of the signature features of the robberies or in the exercise of his sentencing discretion.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The parties agreed that the Review Board's decision had no current effect or consequence for the appellant, as it was effectively erased by a subsequent decision of Trotter J. The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a global sentence of five years for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration and leaving the scene of an accident.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to give appropriate weight to the gap principle, failing to consider his unstable health, and relying on a rejected finding of fact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle.

The court noted the appellant's extensive record of nearly three dozen prior related convictions and evidence of continued excessive alcohol consumption during the conviction-free period.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge erred by excluding evidence under section 276 of the Criminal Code that the complainant engaged in consensual sex with another man shortly after the alleged assault.

The Court of Appeal found that the Crown's cross-examination and closing address presented a distorted narrative regarding the complainant's emotional state and loyalty to her boyfriend, making the excluded evidence highly probative to the defence.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for credit card offences, obstruction of a peace officer, and breach of probation, as well as his global sentence of five years and four months.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and made unreasonable findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the circumstantial evidence overwhelming.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit given the appellant's 23-year criminal record for similar offences.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board imposing a detention order that required him to live in 'supervised accommodation' if living in the community.

The Court of Appeal found the Board did not act unreasonably in imposing a detention order, but erred in unilaterally imposing the 'supervised accommodation' term without allowing submissions on its meaning, need, or availability.

The appeal was allowed to vary the order, removing the 'supervised accommodation' requirement but directing that the appellant not reside with his father.

The appellant appealed his sentence of just over 5 years imprisonment for a brutal, planned beating of a victim who had spoken to the police.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in applying amendments to s. 719 of the Criminal Code, as the offence was committed before the amendments came into force.

However, applying the principles in R. v. Rezaie, the Court concluded the sentence was fit given the severity of the offence and the appellant's record of violence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's weighing of the evidence or application of the burden of proof.

The court also found the sentence imposed reflected no error in principle and fell within the appropriate range.

The appeal from conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of assault and assault with a weapon following an altercation at a bar.

At trial, her counsel failed to request a booking videotape that showed her wearing flat-soled boots, contradicting a key Crown witness who testified the assailant wore high heels.

The summary conviction appeal judge refused to admit the videotape as fresh evidence, finding it would not have affected the verdict.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, admitted the fresh evidence, and ordered a new trial, holding that the videotape was highly relevant to the reliability of the Crown's identification evidence and the appellant's credibility.

The young person appealed his convictions for robbery and breach of recognizance, arguing the trial judge erred by using evidence from a voir dire in the trial proper.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge improperly used the voir dire evidence to bolster his assessment of the complainant's credibility.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a one-year term of imprisonment imposed for a lengthy history of domestic violence.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence fully justified and held that the public interest would not be served by refusing to re-incarcerate the appellant.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The self-represented appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant expressed frustrations regarding his institutional living conditions.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision to be reasonable and dismissed the appeal, while expressing hope that the Board would consider the appellant's concerns at his upcoming hearing.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving without insurance under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

He had previously failed to attend court due to language difficulties and was unsuccessful in reopening his case.

The appellant presented new evidence, confirmed by the Crown, that he was actually insured at the time he was stopped.

The Crown conceded the appeal, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, entering an acquittal and ordering the remission of any fine paid.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and obstruction of justice.

At trial, the complainant was a hostile witness who claimed she could not remember making prior statements.

The trial judge admitted the complainant's out-of-court statements to a nurse and the police under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of threshold reliability and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeal was fact-driven, raised no important legal issues, and lacked strong merits.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the grounds of appeal were weak and had no significance beyond the immediate case.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving (care or control).

The trial judge found that the appellant, who was the sole occupant of the vehicle and had control of the keys, repeatedly asked a passerby for a rope to pull his car back onto the road.

The Court of Appeal held there was adequate evidence to support the finding that the appellant created a risk of putting the car in motion while impaired, thereby creating a danger to the public.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on charges related to impaired driving causing bodily harm and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The trial judge found the accused was driving while impaired but had a reasonable doubt as to whether the impairment caused the complainant's bodily injury and whether the accused knew he had been in an accident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were grounded in the evidence and not based on speculation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for a home invasion, arguing that the trial judge's decision should receive less deference due to prior errors, that the trial judge misapprehended identification evidence, and that the reasons were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that prior corrections do not affect deference, the trial judge made no substantive error in using a tattoo and gold tooth covers as identification evidence, and the reasons were brief but adequate.

The sentence appeal was abandoned.

The Crown appealed the effective 14-month sentence imposed on the respondent for aggravated assault and break and enter after she invaded a neighbour's cottage and stabbed him.

The respondent, a 60-year-old first offender with mental health issues, had already completed the custodial portion of her sentence under stringent lockdown conditions.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown that the original sentence was demonstrably unfit and that a penitentiary sentence ought to have been imposed for general deterrence.

However, given fresh medical evidence of the respondent's positive progress and the fact she had already served her time, the court concluded re-incarceration would serve no useful purpose and dismissed the appeal.