Michael Robert Fawcett

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to 22 months' imprisonment following a home invasion robbery.

The appellant claimed self-defence after striking the intruder with a shovel, causing significant injuries.

The trial judge rejected the self-defence claim, finding the appellant had the intruder under control and administered a gratuitous beating.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence on multiple grounds, including alleged misapprehension of evidence regarding bear spray effects, the timing of acquiring the shovel, and the number of blows struck.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no material errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments and factual findings.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the 22-month sentence was within the appropriate range for aggravated assault by a first offender.

The appellant appealed his convictions and 20-month sentence for possession and distribution of child pornography.

He argued the trial judge failed to properly apply the W.(D.) test to his defence of innocent possession, misapprehended evidence regarding deleted files, and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the law and relied on compelling evidence of knowledge, including the sophisticated organization of the files.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 20-month term was within the appropriate range and the trial judge made no errors in assessing aggravating factors.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving causing bodily harm, arguing the trial judge's finding was unreasonable and misapprehended evidence regarding his refusal to provide a breath sample.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the conviction was reasonably supported by evidence of alcohol consumption, an unexplained accident, obstructive behaviour, and the statutory inference from refusing a breath sample.

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended circumstantial evidence and seeking to introduce fresh evidence regarding the non-existence of an alleyway described by a taxi driver.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the alleged misapprehensions insignificant to the overwhelming circumstantial case.

The court declined to admit the fresh evidence, noting the issue could have been pursued at trial and the alleyway's existence was not the significant feature of the taxi driver's evidence.

The court concluded it defied credulity to claim the appellant was not a participant in the robbery.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for his role in a home invasion.

The Crown argued that the respondent should have received a longer sentence than his co-accused due to his older age and longer criminal record.

The Court of Appeal found that while a distinction could have been drawn, the failure to impose a significantly longer sentence did not render the sentence manifestly unfit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was previously found Not Criminally Responsible for criminal harassment and mischief, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board maintaining his conditional discharge.

He argued that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion reasonable given the appellant's active symptoms of schizophrenia, lack of insight, and stated intention to stop taking medication if discharged.

The appellant appealed his convictions for marijuana cultivation and firearms possession, arguing that evidence seized during a second search of his home should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The police had executed an initial general search warrant but failed to provide the statutorily-mandated notice within 180 days.

A second warrant was later executed, yielding drugs and weapons.

The Court of Appeal found that the failure to provide notice breached s. 8 and that the evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed the Charter, as both searches were part of the same continuous investigation.

However, applying the Grant framework, the Court upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the police conduct was not in bad faith and that society's interest in adjudication on the merits favoured admitting the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault, arguing he was denied a fair trial due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

He alleged his counsel failed to cross-examine the complainant on certain text messages and conducted a perfunctory examination-in-chief.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that counsel's decision not to use the text messages was a deliberate tactical decision within the range of reasonable professional assistance.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice, as the text messages largely corroborated the complainant's account.

The Crown sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal decision that affirmed the accused's acquittal.

The Crown argued the case raised important questions about a detainee's obligation of diligence under section 10(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the police officer failed to afford the detainee a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel of his choice or facilitate that contact, and thus the proposed questions were not raised on the facts.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to appear, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his motion for a directed verdict because the Crown failed to lead evidence of his identity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the identity of names, the appellant's concession on confirmation of the promise to appear, his surrender to police, and the certificates tendered provided sufficient circumstantial evidence of identity to defeat a directed verdict motion.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board failed to address a treatment impasse and erred in admitting an email into evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of a treatment impasse on the record and noting the Board's wide latitude to accept hearsay evidence.

The appellant's continued detention at a maximum secure forensic facility was deemed appropriate.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the agent of his paralegal entered a guilty plea against his instructions.

The Crown conceded that the plea was invalid.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, raising grounds of appeal including errors in jury instructions regarding police narrative evidence, eyewitness identification, and prior statements, as well as the trial judge's refusal to quash a search warrant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the jury instructions and no basis to interfere with the trial judge's Garofoli analysis regarding the search warrant.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for a sexual assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention on a secure forensic unit.

He argued he should be transferred to a general forensic unit or given a hybrid order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's ongoing inappropriate sexual behaviour and the increased risk to others if supervision were decreased.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving over 80.

He sought disclosure of historical maintenance and usage records for the Intoxilyzer used in his breath tests.

The trial judge ordered disclosure under the first party Stinchcombe regime, and a motion judge refused to quash the order.

The Crown and the Ottawa Police Service appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the records were generated by and in the exclusive possession of the police service, making them third party records governed by the O'Connor regime.

The court further held that the accused failed to meet the 'likely relevant' threshold for third party production, as the request was a speculative fishing expedition.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable.

He contended that the trial judge erred by placing too much reliance on the victim's companion, disregarding expert evidence on the victim's blood alcohol level, and unjustifiably discrediting the evidence of the appellant and his companions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was merely inviting the court to re-weigh the evidence, and that the trial judge's treatment of the evidence was perfectly reasonable.

The United States sought the extradition of the appellant for child luring based on internet communications traced to an IP address.

The extradition judge committed the appellant for extradition after inferring that the appellant was the user of the IP address at the relevant time because he was the subscriber.

The Court of Appeal held that this inference was unreasonable without further evidence linking the subscriber to the actual use of the device at the time of the offence, and quashed the committal order.

The Court also dismissed a constitutional challenge to the ex parte gathering and sending provisions of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, finding they contained adequate safeguards to satisfy procedural fairness under the Charter.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of first degree murder.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred by allowing the accused to lead her lengthy, exculpatory police video statement as part of her defence under the Edgar exception for prior consistent statements.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge applied the correct principles and reasonably exercised his discretion in finding the statement was spontaneous and made when the accused was first confronted with an accusation of a crime.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to eight years in custody.

He appealed the sentence, arguing he should have received enhanced pre-trial custody credit on a 1.5 to 1 basis and that the sentence was unfit because he did not bring the gun to the scene.

The Crown conceded the pre-trial custody issue, and the Court of Appeal applied the Summers framework to increase the credit to 39 months.

However, the court dismissed the fitness of sentence appeal, finding the sentencing judge had already accounted for the fact that the appellant did not bring the gun and that the sentence was fit given the aggravating factors.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge's reasons were inadequate and seeking to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were responsive to the defence's argument that the complainant attempted to frame the appellant.

The Court also declined to admit the fresh evidence, concluding it could not reasonably undermine the complainant's credibility on material issues.