Megan Stephens

The appellants appealed convictions and penitentiary sentences arising from prolonged physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of a vulnerable complainant in a domestic setting.

The court rejected arguments that the trial judge conflated credibility and reliability, misapprehended medical and nursing evidence, rendered unreasonable verdicts, or misapplied the burden of proof under the W.(D.) framework.

Reading the reasons as a whole, the court held that the trial judge properly considered the entire evidentiary record, the defence fabrication theory, and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeals were dismissed as the global sentences, including consecutive terms for one appellant, were fit.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board granting an absolute discharge to an accused found not criminally responsible.

The accused had twice attempted to grab a police officer's gun during suicidal episodes.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by placing an onus on the hospital to prove the accused posed a significant risk to the public.

The Court also held that the Board's conclusion that the accused did not pose a significant risk was unreasonable, speculative, and contrary to the uncontradicted expert psychiatric evidence regarding her impulsivity and lack of insight.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The youth pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon and using an imitation firearm.

The sentencing judge rejected a joint submission for probation and, on her own motion, designated the offence as a 'serious violent offence' under s. 42(9) of the YCJA, which she held precluded a deferred custody and supervision order under s. 42(5)(a).

The youth appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that an application by the Attorney General is required before an offence can be designated a 'serious violent offence' under s. 42(9).

Absent such an application, the sentencing judge erred in concluding she was precluded from imposing a deferred custody and supervision order.

The sentence was varied to 144 days' deferred custody and 18 months' supervision.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for a series of sexual assaults and extortion against his son's 17-year-old girlfriend.

The Court of Appeal found the conditional sentence manifestly inadequate given the gravity of the offences, which included videotaping an attempted sexual assault and using the tape to extort further compliance.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to 15 months' imprisonment, taking into account pre-trial custody and time served on the conditional sentence.

The Crown appealed a costs order made by the Superior Court of Justice.

The respondent conceded that the appeal should be allowed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the costs order.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for sexual assault.

The complainant had attended a hotel party where she became highly intoxicated and lost memory of the events.

DNA evidence later linked the appellants to the assault.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, misapprehended evidence of intoxication, and misapplied the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and conclusions on capacity to consent were supported by the evidence.

On the sentence appeals, one appellant's two-year sentence was reduced by one day on consent for immigration purposes, while the other appellant's two-year sentence was upheld despite his lack of a prior record, given the gravity of the offence.

The young person appealed their convictions, arguing the trial judge placed undue emphasis on their demeanour and misapprehended evidence relating to flight and their relationship with a dog.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's assessment of credibility was open to her and that the reasons as a whole did not support the claim of misapprehended evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board refusing his request to be transferred to medium security and ordering an independent assessment prior to the next annual review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the Board's conclusion that remaining at Oak Ridge was the least restrictive means of controlling the significant risk posed by the appellant.

The Court also found that ordering an independent assessment was a prudent precautionary step, not an indication of uncertainty.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for the aggravated assault of his domestic partner.

He argued the verdict was unreasonable, based on circumstantial evidence, and that the trial judge reversed the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the circumstantial evidence, including blood evidence and witness testimony, was sufficient to support the verdict.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the four-year sentence was within the appropriate range given the domestic context and the appellant's lengthy criminal record for violent offences.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, raising for the first time the issue of whether the Board had jurisdiction to order random breath and urine sampling as a condition of his residing in the community.

The Court of Appeal declined to hear the jurisdictional issue, noting that the condition had been in effect since 2002, the record was unclear as to whether the appellant had consented to it, and it was unclear whether the treatment team would have recommended community living without it.

Finding no merit in the other issues raised, the court dismissed the appeal.

The Crown appealed a 15-month conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for four counts of abduction in contravention of a custody order, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to include punitive conditions.

The Court of Appeal agreed that a conditional sentence must generally include punitive terms such as house arrest or a curfew.

However, because the respondent had served six weeks of pre-trial custody, faced punitive terms for related passport offences, and had already served a significant portion of the conditional sentence, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him to a maximum-security facility.

The appellant argued that the hospital breached its statutory duty under s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code by failing to provide notice of an increase in restrictions on his liberty.

The Court of Appeal accepted that a breach occurred, but found the issue moot given the Board's subsequent transfer decision.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was supported by unchallenged expert evidence from the treating physician that the appellant was not suitable for a medium-security placement.

The appellant abandoned his appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The accused was acquitted of murder following a stabbing at a nightclub.

At trial, evidence was admitted that the deceased had 39 ecstasy pills sewn into his underwear, on the condition that the defence would not use it to suggest the deceased had a violent disposition.

However, in his closing address, defence counsel rhetorically asked the jury to link the drugs to violence, implying the deceased was the aggressor.

The trial judge refused the Crown's request for a corrective instruction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred in failing to correct the impermissible propensity reasoning invited by defence counsel.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's order was not unreasonable and noting that any progress made by the appellant could be considered at his next review hearing.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing evidence, misapprehended testimony, and failed to properly apply the W.(D.) principles and the Sheppard standard for sufficiency of reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were detailed, properly addressed the evidence, and correctly applied the law.

The court upheld the finding that the complainant was too intoxicated to consent and that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Crown conceded the trial judge erred by relying on hearsay evidence from the appellant's cross-examination of the victim.

The Court of Appeal applied the curative proviso, finding that a conviction was inevitable given the victim's injuries, which clearly indicated the use of a weapon.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

However, the court found the 48-month sentence was outside the acceptable range and reduced it to time served, equivalent to 32 months.

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample.

He argued that a subsequent demand made by a breathalyzer technician without reasonable and probable grounds invalidated the initial valid roadside demand.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the initial demand was a continuing demand that remained in force until complied with, and the subsequent demand was merely a good faith attempt to give the appellant a further opportunity to comply.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the conviction, including the appellant's admission of drinking and blacking out, the odour of alcohol, and the circumstances of the collision with a bus.