Michael John Medeiros

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for offences involving two child victims at a licensed daycare in his home.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions and no misapprehension of evidence.

The court also upheld the sentence as fit and within the appropriate range, noting the appellant's position of trust.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and failed to properly apply the W.(D.) test for assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal found no misapprehension of evidence, noting the trial judge carefully reviewed the complainant's testimony and provided ample explanation for accepting it independent of rejecting the appellant's evidence.

The court also found the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) test, having acquitted the appellant on two other counts.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering that he remain subject to a conditional discharge.

He had been found not guilty by reason of insanity for second-degree murder in 1985 and had been living in the community without substance use since 2001.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, as it placed undue emphasis on trivial conduct and ignored the treating psychiatrist's opinion that the appellant did not pose a significant threat to public safety.

The appeal was allowed and an absolute discharge was ordered.

The appellant appealed his sentence of five years' imprisonment for robbery and related offences, arguing it violated the parity and jump principles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, finding the appellant's circumstances and criminal record differed significantly from his co-accused, and the jump principle did not apply due to the dramatic increase in the seriousness of his crimes.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to quash a restitution order, as the Crown conceded the stolen funds had been fully recovered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving causing bodily harm, arguing the jury's guilty verdict was inconsistent with his acquittals on two 'over 80' charges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that impaired driving and driving 'over 80' are separate offences.

The court found there was abundant evidence of impairment, including prior drinking, erratic driving, and unusual behaviour, to support the conviction despite the acquittals on the blood alcohol charges.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal court decision affirming his conviction for assault causing bodily harm.

The applicant argued the trial judge and appeal judge misapprehended video surveillance evidence regarding his claim of self-defence.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding the proposed grounds lacked significance to the general administration of criminal justice and the merits were not strong, as the trial judge's findings were based on the evidence as a whole.

The appellant appealed his convictions for distributing and possessing child pornography, arguing his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was breached and three statements to police should have been excluded.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to admit the first and third statements.

The court found the appellant was not detained during the first statement, and the third statement was not tainted by any potential breach during the second statement, as the appellant repeatedly declined to contact counsel before the third interview.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.

In a prosecution for attempted murder involving a firearm, the Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused’s prior discreditable conduct involving a former partnership with the complainant in illegal marijuana grow operations and the alleged theft of those operations’ contents.

The defence argued the evidence was prejudicial character evidence and unnecessary given other identification evidence.

The court applied the principles governing similar fact and discreditable conduct evidence, including the probative value versus prejudicial effect balancing test articulated in R. v. Handy.

The court held the evidence was highly probative of motive, intent, identification, and narrative context, explaining why the accused was present at the location of the alleged shooting and the dynamics between the parties.

The probative value outweighed the potential for moral or reasoning prejudice.