Michael John Medeiros

The appellant sought leave to appeal from the dismissal of his appeal to the Superior Court from his conviction in the Ontario Court of Justice for uttering threats to cause death.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the appellant failed to satisfy the test on both branches: there was no question of law with arguable merit and significance to the administration of justice, and there was no clear error in the decision below.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding solicitor-client privilege, finding that such privilege did not apply to the communications in question and that the summary conviction appeal judge was not required to address the issue in his reasons.

An appellant appealed a disposition decision of the Ontario Review Board dated June 7, 2016, which declined to modify the conditions of his detention order to provide broader community access privileges.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder for second degree murder and was detained at a mental health facility.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the Board failed to consider readily available and relevant information from the original NCR hearing; and second, that the disposition was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable and that the NCR hearing information was not material to the narrow issue before the Board regarding whether the appellant's risk could be managed through modified detention terms.

The accused was charged with sexual offences against a four-year-old child.

During a voir dire into the admissibility of a video-recorded police interview with the child complainant, the defence brought a motion for further Crown disclosure seeking police training materials, policy manuals, and information regarding the interviewing officer's training in child interrogation techniques.

The Crown argued these materials were not in its possession and control, and that the defence should pursue a third-party records application.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering disclosure of police-wide standards, policies, and protocols governing child interviews, but refusing disclosure of general training and reference materials.