Michael Davies

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that although the Board did not have the benefit of the most recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the conditions imposed were the least onerous and restrictive possible.

The Board's decision was reasonable and consistent with the available evidence.

The appellant was convicted of making harassing telephone calls contrary to s. 372(3) of the Criminal Code.

His summary conviction appeal was dismissed, and he sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant argued that the prosecution was barred by the limitation period, that the calls were not 'repeated', that they were not received by the intended victims, and that he had a lawful excuse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the offence was a continuing course of conduct within the limitation period, and that the trial judge's factual findings regarding the nature, receipt, and purpose of the calls were supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that a doctor had doubts about his diagnosis of a major mental illness.

The Court of Appeal found that the doctor did not dispute the diagnosis and believed discharge was inappropriate due to the risk of harm presented by the appellant.

The Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable, supported by evidence, and represented the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marijuana, and possession of a restricted weapon.

She appealed her convictions, arguing that the evidence seized from her residence under a general warrant violated her section 8 Charter rights and should have been excluded under section 24(2).

The Court of Appeal found that the general warrant was invalid because the police could have obtained a conventional warrant, rendering the search warrantless and a breach of section 8.

However, the Court admitted the evidence under section 24(2), concluding that the police acted in good faith and the exclusion of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into greater disrepute than its admission.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated August 7, 2002.

The Court of Appeal found no basis on the record to conclude that the Board's decision was unreasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on two charges of first degree murder.

The Ontario Review Board subsequently determined he was fit to stand trial and ordered him returned to court.

The accused sought to appeal the Review Board's opinion.

The Crown brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion and quashed the appeal, holding that there is no statutory right of appeal from a Review Board's opinion on fitness under section 672.48 of the Criminal Code, and no interlocutory appeals exist in criminal matters.