Michael Robert Fawcett

The appellant, Brandon Omardeen, appealed his convictions for multiple firearm-related offences and breach charges, as well as his sentence.

He challenged the trial judge's credibility and reliability findings, the identification evidence, and the finding of consciousness of guilt based on his post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings on identification, the absence of gunshot residue, or the inference of consciousness of guilt.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was found to be fit given the extensive aggravating factors and the appellant's criminal record.

The appellant, David Earle, appealed his conviction for fraud over $5,000 and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The trial judge had found that Earle defrauded clients of Global Precious Metals (GPM) of nearly one million dollars by leading them to believe they were purchasing physical precious metals when they were only acquiring notional "metal positions." The appeal raised issues concerning undue delay under the Charter (s. 11(b)), the trial judge's assessment of the mental element of fraud, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the quantum of restitution and fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, except for quashing the victim fine surcharge.

The appellant appealed a 24-month conditional sentence.

Based on unusual circumstances, significant pre-sentence custody, fresh evidence, and a Crown concession, the Court of Appeal found the original sentence unreasonable.

The court accepted a joint submission and varied the sentence to 12 months' incarceration, less 5 months' credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 7 months.

The appellant pled guilty to robbery and using an imitation firearm and was sentenced to a global custodial sentence of 23.5 months after pre-sentence custody credit.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in applying Gladue principles, failed to consider rehabilitation, and that the sentence should be reconsidered due to the Sharma decision and COVID-19 lockdowns.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge appropriately applied Gladue principles, considered rehabilitation, and already accounted for COVID-19 hardships.

A conditional sentence was unavailable as the sentence was not less than two years.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the complainant's evidence regarding the timeline of events and failed to adequately address inconsistencies in her testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the timeline discrepancy went only to the reliability of time estimates rather than core credibility, and that the trial judge had ample corroborating evidence to support his findings.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing an error in the calculation of his pre-trial custody credit.

The Crown conceded the appeal, acknowledging that the parties made a mathematical error at trial.

The Court of Appeal granted leave, allowed the appeal, and reduced the appellant's sentence by 257 days.

The appellant appealed his convictions for breach of undertaking, sexual assault, and uttering threats against his ex-partner.

He argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, that the Crown improperly cross-examined him on the details of his prior convictions, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal found that while the Crown's cross-examination on the appellant's criminal record was improper, it did not unduly influence the trial judge's credibility assessment or lead to a miscarriage of justice.

The court also rejected the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, finding no merit in the allegations.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, and leave to appeal the sentence was denied.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and discharging a firearm after shooting the victim in the leg.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on the victim's eyewitness identification and that several counts should be stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The Court of Appeal stayed five counts on consent based on Kienapple.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed, as the trial judge properly instructed himself on the dangers of eyewitness identification and reasonably relied on corroborating circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance and a partial license plate match.

The appellant appealed his convictions for breach of probation, arguing that he did not make the phone call that led to the charges.

At the outset of the hearing, the appellant sought an adjournment to retain counsel, which was refused as the matter was peremptory and he had ample time to prepare.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility regarding the identity of the caller.

The appellant was convicted of fraud over $5000, fraud under $5000, and uttering a forged document after misappropriating over $350,000 from clients of her payroll services company.

She appealed her convictions and three-year custodial sentence, alleging errors in credibility findings, unauthorized changes to her mode of trial, unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, improper non-disclosure, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no merit in any of the grounds raised.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, save for setting aside the victim fine surcharge.

The appellant pled guilty to attempted break and enter and was sentenced to a short custodial term, probation, and a lifetime weapons prohibition under s. 109(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

He appealed the weapons prohibition, arguing it prevented him from hunting for food.

The Crown conceded the appeal, agreeing that the offence involved intoxicated confusion with no intent to commit theft and no weapons or violence, making the prohibition discretionary rather than mandatory.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the weapons prohibition order on consent.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal regarding a decision that dismissed his motion to strike his guilty plea.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeal did not raise a question of law alone and that the motion judge applied the correct test for an extension of time without error.

The appellant appealed from a decision denying certiorari to quash his committal to stand trial on firearms charges.

The charges related to a handgun with a defective firing pin.

A firearms expert testified that a replacement pin could be sourced and installed relatively easily, though it was temporarily out of stock.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the reviewing judge's conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to infer the handgun could be adapted for use as a firearm within a reasonable time.

The appellant and a co-accused were charged with possession of a loaded restricted firearm following an altercation at a nightclub.

At trial, the appellant's counsel cross-examined a security guard, suggesting he was lying to protect the co-accused.

The trial judge restricted certain lines of questioning regarding identity, prior statements, and an alleged drug deal.

The appellant appealed his conviction and 48-month sentence, arguing the trial judge's rulings undermined trial fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised her trial management discretion and the rulings did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial.

The applicant, convicted of a violent sexual assault and sentenced to ten years in custody, sought to vary the terms of his bail pending appeal to allow him to work and travel without his surety.

The Crown conceded the appeal was not frivolous and the applicant would surrender into custody.

However, the court found that varying the conditions was not in the public interest.

Given the seriousness of the offence and the lack of supervision by a surety during the proposed work and travel, the court dismissed the application to vary the bail conditions.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences involving a sex trade worker.

He argued that he was denied access to counsel upon arrest, that the trial judge did not take his case seriously, that the complainants were lying, and that the sexual activity was consensual.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidentiary basis for the right to counsel claim and no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments.

The court upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the sexual activity, which began as consensual, evolved into a non-consensual sexual assault when the appellant refused to use a condom and used a boxcutter to stroke the complainant's neck.

The appellant was convicted of counselling the commission of an indictable offence (murder) and appealed her conviction, the dismissal of her entrapment application, and her sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, upholding the trial judge's findings that the appellant intended the offence and was not entrapped, and that the sentence was fit.

The appellant, Jennifer Renaud, appealed a custodial sentence of ten months for multiple criminal offences, including unauthorized possession of a weapon, theft of a motor vehicle, and personation.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence to be too harsh because it exceeded the Crown's requested range without explanation, there was an underestimation of pre-sentence custody credit, and the sentencing judge failed to mention the appellant's guilty plea as a mitigating factor.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence for personation was varied to be concurrent, resulting in time served.

The appellant was convicted of sexual exploitation of a young person and sentenced to ten months' incarceration after sexually assaulting his partner's child during a massage.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, failed to address inconsistencies in the complainant's statements, and imposed an unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence, no significant inconsistencies, and that the sentence was fit given the appellant's position of trust.

The appellant, Brandon Morgan, appealed his sentence for aggravated assault and failing to comply with court orders, seeking a reduction due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on his incarceration conditions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that while judicial notice could be taken of the pandemic's general impact, the requested sentence reduction would render the sentence disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's blameworthiness, even considering collateral consequences.

The court noted that the original sentence was already lenient and that parole authorities could consider the pandemic's impact.