Meghan Tait

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Heeralall Ramdeo from convictions for kidnapping, use of an imitation firearm to commit an assault, and possession of an imitation firearm for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s reliance on the evidence of the complainant, a Vetrovec witness, nor in the application of the W.(D.) standard or the assessment of credibility.

The court held that the trial judge properly scrutinized the evidence, found sufficient confirmatory evidence, and gave detailed reasons for his findings.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, assault, and mischief arising from a lengthy relationship with the complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred by requiring corroboration, improperly relying on bad character evidence, and misapprehending evidence regarding his motivation for lying to police.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not require corroboration, did not engage in propensity reasoning, and made no material misapprehension of evidence.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of assault and sexual assault against his former romantic partner and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by admitting a screenshot of a text message exchange without independent authentication and by failing to give adequate limiting instructions to the jury regarding its reliability.

The appellant also appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to Gladue and Morris factors relating to his Black and Indigenous ancestry.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the complainant's testimony was sufficient to authenticate the screenshot and the jury instructions were adequate.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge made no error in principle in weighing the mitigating factors against the gravity of the offences.

The appellant, T.D., appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference involving two complainants, B.S. and B.B. The appeal challenged the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility, specifically regarding inconsistencies in B.S.'s testimony about prior disclosure and the location of incidents, and B.B.'s changing evidence and delayed disclosure of an oral sex incident.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments, affirming that the judge was entitled to treat certain inconsistencies as peripheral given the complainants' age at the time of the events.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for serious sexual assault and assault charges, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention order.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge, arguing it was the least onerous and restrictive option given his recent progress in managing his mental disorder and substance use.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by evidence, particularly the psychiatrist's view that a detention order was necessary for rapid intervention in case of relapse, given the appellant's history of substance abuse and associated violence.

The court emphasized the Board's obligation to protect public safety and the high standard for overturning Board decisions.

The case concerns the sentencing of Timothy Hill, a 37-year-old Mohawk man, for possessing a loaded handgun (s. 95 Criminal Code) and careless storage (s. 86 Criminal Code).

The Crown sought 2 years imprisonment, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence given Mr. Hill's Indigenous heritage and significant pre-sentence house arrest.

The court emphasized the need for proportionality in sentencing, considering the gravity of the offence and the offender's responsibility, particularly in light of Gladue principles and the over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples.

The judge granted a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day, followed by 3 years probation, recognizing the mitigating factors of Mr. Hill's Indigenous background and the impact of his house arrest.

The applicant, charged with firearms and domestic violence offences, brought a Charter motion alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 10(b) rights during the police investigation and his subsequent arrest.

He argued that police unlawfully tracked his cell phone, viewed his apartment building's video surveillance, conducted a warrantless 'clear and hold' of his apartment, and delayed implementing his right to counsel.

The court dismissed the s. 8 claims, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the ping data or common area surveillance, and that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.

The court found a minor s. 10(b) breach regarding a failure to re-read rights for an additional drug charge, but declined to stay proceedings or exclude evidence under s. 24.

The Applicant, M.C., charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement, brought a pre-trial motion to introduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity and discussions under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court conducted a two-stage hearing to determine admissibility.

Evidence directly related to the alleged incident (questions 12-21) was deemed permissible.

Evidence of general prior sexual activity and relationship context (questions 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11) was found inadmissible as it supported "twin myths" and lacked probative value.

However, specific discussions about planning bondage sex for the Niagara Falls trip (questions 4, 7, 8, and safe word discussions from 5) were deemed admissible, as they directly related to the accused's understanding of the interactions at the time of the alleged offence and were not unduly prejudicial.

The appellant, Reaad Ferose, appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in his blood, arguing that the trial judge erred in not excluding breath sample evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter despite multiple Charter breaches (ss. 8, 9, and 10(b)).

The trial judge had found breaches related to unlawful demand for breath samples (s. 8), arbitrary detention (s. 9), delayed right to counsel, and failure to properly implement the right to choose counsel (s. 10(b)).

However, the trial judge concluded that the impact of these breaches was minimal and admitted the evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis, particularly regarding the minimal impact of breath sample-related breaches as per R. v. Jennings, and the s. 10(b) breaches given the absence of demonstrated prejudice.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath sample analysis results, alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded one breach of section 10(b) rights.

The court found breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b), but determined that exclusion of the evidence would not be warranted under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was found guilty.