Meaghan McMahon

Four appellants appealed their convictions, arguing that their Charter s. 11(b) rights to be tried within a reasonable time were violated due to unreasonable delay.

The application judges had dismissed their s. 11(b) applications, finding that despite delays exceeding the Jordan ceiling (18 months), the Crown had demonstrated the cases were complex and had a concrete plan to minimize delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judges' decisions, finding no reversible error in their assessment of the Crown's plan and the complexity of the cases.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence for armed robbery and wearing a disguise, arguing the sentencing judge erred in applying Gladue principles and that a new legal development (Sharma) made a conditional sentence available.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's application of Gladue principles and declined to impose a conditional sentence, affirming the original sentence.

However, due to the appellant's significant post-sentence rehabilitation, the court allowed the appeal for the limited purpose of permanently staying the execution of his remaining incarceration and substituted it with a two-year probation period, also imposing a 10-year weapons prohibition.

Following the defendant's conviction for assaulting two women, the Crown applied for an order for an assessment of the defendant's mental condition to determine whether he was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility under section 16(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant opposed the application.

The court found that the Crown satisfied the requirements under section 672.12(3)(b) of the Criminal Code by establishing reasonable grounds to doubt the defendant's criminal responsibility on account of mental disorder.

The defendant had a history of schizoaffective disorder, had ceased taking his prescribed medication, and was experiencing active delusions and hallucinations at the time of the offences.

The court ordered a 30-day assessment.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on driving-related charges, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention at a secure forensic psychiatric unit.

He argued the Board erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety and in failing to hold a hearing regarding a temporary increase in restrictions on his liberty following an elopement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion on public safety risk was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Court declined to decide the restriction of liberty issue as it was moot, and refused to impose a general notice and hearing procedure on the Board.

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 plaintiff sought costs of $13,983.34 on a partial indemnity scale following a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals, and a dismissed motion to examine a second representative.

The defendant sought costs of $26,144.52.

The court found the refusals motion was necessary to progress the litigation, but noted the plaintiff's requests were overbroad.

Balancing the divided success and the conduct of both parties, the court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $3,500.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant insurer to answer refusals from an examination for discovery and for leave to examine a second representative.

The action arose from the defendant's denial of the plaintiff's water loss claim on the basis that it was staged.

The plaintiff sought extensive disclosure regarding other similar claims denied by the defendant involving members of the same ethnic community, alleging racial profiling and bad faith.

The court ordered the defendant to produce its template denial letter and answer specific questions regarding any connection between the plaintiff's claim and the other claims.

However, the court denied the plaintiff's overbroad requests for the entire investigative files of the other claims, as the defendant was not relying on a conspiracy defence.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's request to examine a second representative, finding the first representative was not uninformed or evasive.

The accused brought a pre-trial application under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence seized during a traffic stop, subsequent arrest, and search, arguing racial profiling and significant Charter breaches.

The evidence included a loaded handgun, ammunition, drugs, and cash.

The Crown opposed the application, denying racial profiling and significant breaches.

The court found a breach of the right to counsel under s. 10(b) due to a six-hour delay in providing access to a lawyer while the accused was detained at a hospital, but found other alleged breaches unsubstantiated or minor.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court determined that the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the minor nature of the Charter breach, the independent discovery of the real evidence, and the gravity of the firearms and drug trafficking offences.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition finding that she continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and refusing an absolute discharge.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2004 for theft of a motor vehicle and assault on police officers.

After 15 years in psychiatric care, the Board considered two incidents—a May 2018 threat to kill a co-resident and an October 2018 assault on a bus passenger—in concluding she remained a significant threat.

The appellant argued the Board improperly relied on unproven allegations based on hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly applied the legal test and appropriately considered hearsay evidence in its inquisitorial proceedings.

The appellant was convicted by jury of six sexual offences involving two young female relatives.

On appeal, the appellant raised three grounds: (1) the admission of evidence across counts as similar fact evidence and the jury instruction on its use; (2) the trial judge's ruling preventing the appellant from referring to documents while testifying; and (3) the trial judge's inadvertent references to the appellant as "Mr. Guilty" during the jury charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the similar fact evidence was properly admissible, the aide mémoire ruling was discretionary and reasonable, and the inadvertent misstatements were promptly corrected and caused no prejudice.

An appeal from the Ontario Review Board's detention order for a not criminally responsible accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing she posed no significant risk to public safety based on the absence of violent behaviour since 2015 and abstention from substance abuse since 2016.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding that the Board properly applied the test under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and that evidence supported a finding of significant threat to public safety.

The court rejected the argument that absence of recent violent behaviour eliminated risk, noting that the appellant's stability was contingent on the structured hospital environment and that relapse into substance abuse and medication non-compliance would likely result in psychotic symptoms and violent behaviour.

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.