Megan Petrie

The appellant sought leave to appeal from the dismissal of his appeal from his summary conviction for criminal harassment.

The Court of Appeal applied the stringent test for leave to appeal, requiring either a clear error of law or an issue of public importance.

The court found that the appellant failed to meet this test, as he challenged factual findings and credibility determinations made by the trial judge rather than identifying errors in the appellate judge's decision.

The court upheld the trial judge's findings that the complainant's evidence regarding the poisoning of her cat was not relied upon, that the trial judge properly assessed the complainant's credibility, and that the appellant's conduct constituted criminal harassment.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for break and enter and related offences.

The appellant did not contest that he was the driver of a van that neighbours observed passing a tool to the perpetrator of a daylight residential break-in.

The Court of Appeal found that the constellation of evidence at trial amply supported the inference that the driver of the van was party to a planned break and enter of a dwelling house.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the appellant abandoned his sentence appeal during oral argument.

Bail was rescinded and the intermittent sentence was ordered to resume.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence arising from an attempted robbery on January 6, 2013.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal challenging the trial judge's evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the admission of cell phone records, the denial of the motion for directed verdict on the robbery count, or the jury instruction on party liability.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for offences including break and entry, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, escaping lawful custody, and robbery, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention at a forensic mental health facility.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge, arguing the Board unreasonably concluded detention was necessary and improperly considered the risk of illicit drug use and the ease of readmission as factors in its decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that supervision of housing and readmission capability are relevant considerations for the Board in determining appropriate dispositions.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition that detained an NCR accused who had been under the Board's jurisdiction for over a decade following a finding of not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The Board determined the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety despite fresh evidence from a clinical forensic psychologist indicating low risk on stalking-specific assessment tools.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, holding that the evidence fell short of establishing a significant threat to public safety and that the Board had effectively reversed the burden of proof by relying solely on a moderate-risk HCR-20 V3 assessment without proper expert contextualization.

The young person accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with a heavily intoxicated complainant in a parking lot.

The complainant had limited memory of the events but recalled being held down and repeatedly saying no.

DNA evidence confirmed the presence of the accused's bodily fluids on the complainant.

The court found that the complainant's advanced state of intoxication rendered her incapable of consenting, and that she had also expressed her lack of consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

A young person was charged with sexual assault of a 19-year-old complainant following an incident in a wooded area behind apartment buildings in Scarborough in the early morning hours of July 30, 2016.

The complainant was heavily intoxicated at the time.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant neither had the capacity to consent nor did she express any consent to the sexual activity.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition order that continued the detention of an NCRMD accused with a term permitting community living in approved accommodation.

The appellant challenged both the Board's finding that she remained a significant threat to public safety and the appropriateness of the detention order as opposed to a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but criticized the Board's brevity in addressing key issues, particularly the lack of rigorous analysis regarding the significant threat finding and the failure to explain why detention was necessary and appropriate rather than a conditional discharge.

The court noted that while the Board's decision was not unreasonable on the evidence, it failed to meet standards of transparency and intelligibility in its reasoning.

The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm following an altercation in a correctional facility where he punched the complainant 25 to 30 times in the head.

The sole defence at trial was self-defence.

The trial judge found that the Crown had disproved self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, concluding that the appellant had launched a pre-emptive attack to maintain his status as the "heavy" rather than in genuine self-defence.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the prison context and the "inmate's code." The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the prison setting must be considered as a contextual factor, it does not override the Criminal Code's legal definition of self-defence.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent on the basis that the Crown failed to prove he was presented to a breath technician 'as soon as practicable' following the breath demand.

On appeal, the Superior Court held that presenting an accused to a breath technician 'as soon as practicable' is not an essential element of a valid demand under section 254(3) of the Criminal Code for the purposes of a refusal charge.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a conviction entered.

The appellant, an anti-abortion activist, appealed her convictions for mischief and breach of probation arising from her attendance at an abortion clinic.

She argued that a foetus is a human being and sought to challenge the constitutionality of section 223 of the Criminal Code, asserting defences of defence of others, necessity, and mistake of fact.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision to decline a full evidentiary hearing on the biological status of a foetus, as binding appellate jurisprudence establishes that a foetus does not possess legal personhood or Charter rights.

The court also affirmed that the appellant's proposed defences were unavailable in law and that her probation conditions were reasonable.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was based on three grounds: the trial judge's reliance on inadmissible evidence, an error in finding an unequivocal refusal, and an error in finding the incident was not a "single transaction." The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the entire video evidence was admissible as it was tendered without limitation, the trial judge's finding of an unequivocal refusal was supported by evidence and entitled to deference, and the appellant's late inquiry about providing a sample did not constitute an unequivocal offer or part of a "single transaction" to mitigate the initial refusal.

The Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for failing to comply with a recognizance.

The grounds of appeal included unreasonable verdict, errors in finding breach of recognizance and mens rea, failure of the trial judge to ensure full answer and defence for a self-represented accused, and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact and mens rea were reasonable, that the assistance provided to the self-represented appellant was adequate, and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of failing to comply with a breath demand.

The respondent had failed seven times to provide a proper breath sample after being stopped for speeding and exhibiting signs of alcohol consumption.

The trial judge acquitted the respondent, finding a reasonable doubt as to whether the failure was intentional.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge failed to apply the proper legal standard for mens rea.

The Court found that absent evidence to the contrary, multiple failures to provide a sample give rise to an inescapable inference of intent.

The acquittal was set aside and a conviction entered.

The appellant appealed his assault conviction and sentence, arguing his guilty plea was involuntary and that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove his counsel pressured him or acted incompetently.

The court concluded the appellant's claim was merely 'buyer's remorse' and that his counsel's advice to plead guilty was reasonable given the evidence and the favourable joint submission for a suspended sentence.

The appellant was convicted of driving with a blood alcohol content over 80 milligrams.

At trial, her counsel abandoned Charter applications regarding the breath demand and right to counsel.

On appeal, the self-represented appellant attempted to raise these Charter issues for the first time.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, applying the general rule against raising new issues on appeal, noting the trial record did not support the alleged violations and the Crown would be prejudiced.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, inadequately explained credibility findings, placed too much emphasis on the complainant's demeanor, and misapplied the W.(D.) framework.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and concluding that the reasons were sufficient for appellate review.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter application under ss. 8 and 9.

The appellant contended the police lacked reasonable grounds to arrest him and demand breath samples after observing him driving the wrong way on a ramp and exhibiting signs of impairment.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly concluded the officers had the necessary subjective and objective reasonable grounds.

The court further held that even if a Charter breach had occurred, the breathalyzer results would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused appealed a finding of not criminally responsible (NCR) made after conviction for dangerous driving, assault with a weapon, and taking a motor vehicle without consent.

The NCR hearing occurred unexpectedly when the accused appeared in court expecting to be sentenced, and newly appointed special duty counsel provided minimal challenge to psychiatric evidence supporting an NCR finding.

The Superior Court held the proceedings lacked procedural fairness and amounted to a miscarriage of justice under s. 686(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The court found the NCR application was effectively undefended and conducted prematurely.

The NCR finding was set aside and a new trial ordered limited to the issue of NCR.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry committal for trial on firearms offences, arguing the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded jurisdiction by finding evidence of knowledge and control.

The underlying evidence included a submachine gun and ammunition concealed in a barrel in a bedroom, along with documents bearing the accused’s name and the address of the residence.

The preliminary inquiry judge discharged the accused on a drug trafficking charge but committed him on the firearms offences.

The reviewing court held that the preliminary inquiry judge properly applied the limited weighing approach required for circumstantial cases and correctly assessed whether the evidence was capable of supporting the Crown’s inferences.

There was some evidence linking the accused to the bedroom and residence sufficient to support an inference of knowledge and control.

The certiorari application was therefore dismissed.