Meaghan McMahon

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision revoking a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

A new CTO was subsequently issued for the respondent.

The court found the appeal moot as the original dispute was no longer live and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the academic issue, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of assault and one count of mischief, arguing that the trial judge applied unequal scrutiny to the evidence and improperly used bad character evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility findings were entitled to high deference, particularly given corroborating evidence such as an audio recording.

The court also determined that the trial judge's comments on the accused's behavior while intoxicated were findings of fact based on the totality of evidence, not improper propensity reasoning, and that the judge was aware of the limited use of discreditable conduct evidence.

Five appellants were convicted of offences arising from a home invasion robbery.

The Crown's case alleged a planned robbery with violence, while the defence maintained the incident arose from a drug transaction that escalated when the victim produced a firearm.

The appellants appealed on grounds that the trial judge's conduct rendered the trial unfair, that jury selection instructions were inadequate, and that prior consistent statement instructions were deficient.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's questioning of defence witnesses and extemporaneous comments during jury instructions created a cumulative appearance of bias toward the prosecution, seriously compromising the fairness of the trial.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board decision concerning whether the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre was required to notify the Board of a significant increase in restrictions on the appellant's liberty when she was transferred from the Secure Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (FRU) to the Secure Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU).

The appellant, found not criminally responsible in 2004, had been abusing substances while on the FRU, leading to the transfer.

The Board was divided on whether notice was required under s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code, but unanimously concluded that the transfer constituted the least onerous and least restrictive measure available.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, establishing a framework for determining when notice of significant increases in restrictions on liberty is required.

M.B. appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board that confirmed his incapacity to manage property.

The appellant argued that the Board erred in law by misconstruing the purpose of cross-examination of an expert witness and by failing to properly evaluate the evidence against the presumption of capacity.

The court found that the Board considered all evidence holistically, including the extensive cross-examination, and did not err in its assessment.

The Board's finding of incapacity was upheld, based on M.B.'s history of poor financial decisions and persistent delusional beliefs that prevented him from understanding relevant financial information or appreciating the foreseeable consequences of his decisions.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 20, 2016.

The hospital had recommended a conditional discharge, but the Board imposed a detention order with conditions.

The appellant challenged the Board's decision on multiple grounds, including the refusal to order a conditional discharge and the failure to order a second opinion or independent assessment in light of a potential treatment impasse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's reasoning regarding the appellant's non-compliance with essential drug treatment and the requirement for hospital-approved residence.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 11, 2016, raising an issue regarding the supervisory powers of the Board between hearings.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal to be moot as the Board's disposition had been implemented and the appellant sought no remedy on appeal.

The appeal was dismissed as moot.

The appellant was convicted of firearms and drug trafficking offences following a police investigation involving wiretaps.

He appealed his convictions, arguing he should not have been named as an 'other known person' in the initial wiretap authorization, and appealed his sentence of five years and seven months on the basis of the totality principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the low threshold for naming a known party in a wiretap authorization was met and the global sentence was reasonable.

The appellant, who was previously found Not Criminally Responsible for criminal harassment and mischief, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board maintaining his conditional discharge.

He argued that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion reasonable given the appellant's active symptoms of schizophrenia, lack of insight, and stated intention to stop taking medication if discharged.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for minor assaults and detained at a minimum forensic unit.

Despite his ongoing marijuana use, he had no history of aggression while detained.

The Ontario Review Board ordered his transfer to a medium security unit to restrict his access to drugs and help him develop insight.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the transfer unreasonable because it was more restrictive of his liberty and there was no evidence linking his marijuana use to a risk to public safety while detained.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that he should have received an absolute discharge as he was no longer a significant threat to public safety, or alternatively, that the Board failed in its inquisitorial role regarding the timing of his 24-hour supervised community living placement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant required ongoing supervision to ensure medication compliance and prevent relapse.

The Court also noted that the Board had appropriately questioned the hospital on the timing of the placement, and fresh evidence indicated a bed would soon be available.

The appellant appealed his convictions for drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, arguing that his arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds once evidence obtained from an illegal police entry into a condominium was excluded.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the totality of the remaining circumstances provided sufficient grounds for the arrest.

However, the court granted leave to appeal the sentence and quashed the two-year probation order, as the Crown conceded it was illegal under s. 731(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed his convictions on two counts of assault causing bodily harm relating to his two-month-old infant, who suffered 12 rib fractures on two separate occasions.

The appellant argued the first verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge misapplied the W. (D.) principles, and that the second verdict involved an error in applying the test for implied consent during an attempt to administer CPR.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings reasonable, the W. (D.) principles properly applied, and that the force used during the alleged CPR was excessive, vitiating any defence of implied consent.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference against a 13-year-old complainant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in admitting a hearsay statement from the complainant's sister and in accepting the mother's evidence regarding a change in the sisters' relationship.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in admitting the hearsay statement, the curative proviso applied because the trial judge explicitly stated he would have reached the same conclusion without it.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's acceptance of the mother's evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.