Michael William Lacy

The appellants, a police officer and an employee of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, were convicted of defrauding an elderly man's estate using a fabricated will.

They appealed their convictions and sentences, arguing errors in the trial judge's refusal to stay proceedings for a Charter breach, admission of after-the-fact conduct evidence regarding the concealment of their affair, and an unbalanced jury charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or the sentences imposed.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and arson in relation to the death of his wife.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the hearsay utterances of a co-accused, obtained during a Mr. Big operation, who confessed to the murder and claimed the appellant hired him.

The co-accused refused to testify at trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting the hearsay evidence and in his instructions to the jury regarding the hearsay evidence, bad character evidence, and the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's threshold reliability analysis or jury instructions.

Summary conviction appeal from convictions for sexual interference and voyeurism arising from incidents at a shopping mall involving a 15-year-old complainant and surreptitious recordings of teenage girls.

The appellant argued that the trial judge relied on improper assumptions about innocent behaviour, misapprehended the complainant's evidence about the nature of the touching, and reversed the burden of proof in her credibility analysis.

The court rejected all conviction grounds, holding that the impugned findings were open on the record, the complainant's evidence was assessed contextually, and the reasons disclosed substantive compliance with the W.D. framework.

The appeal from sentence succeeded only in part because the 20-year SOIRA order exceeded the statutory maximum for summary conviction offences; the order was reduced to 10 years but otherwise upheld.

The offender was convicted after trial of one count of dangerous driving causing death and five counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

While driving at 134 kph in an 80 kph zone with prolonged inattention, the offender rear-ended another vehicle, pushing it into oncoming traffic and causing a fatal head-on collision.

The court weighed the offender's high moral blameworthiness, excessive speed, and prior speeding record against her genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and the collateral consequence of losing her teaching career.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to 27 months' incarceration and imposed a 5-year driving prohibition.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and weapons offences following a stabbing at a bar.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his s. 11(b) Charter application by improperly deducting pandemic-related delay, and in admitting a police officer's recognition evidence identifying him from video surveillance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's attribution of delay to the pandemic or in the application of the prior acquaintance test for the recognition evidence.

The appellant challenged his jury conviction for sexual assault offences and a five-year penitentiary sentence, arguing the jury charge on motive was unbalanced and the sentencing judge improperly treated lack of insight or remorse as aggravating.

The court held the charge, read functionally and as a whole, accurately and sufficiently instructed the jury, including on motive to fabricate and motive to offend, and any imperfections did not create legal error.

On sentence, the court found no error in principle affecting fitness and no improper reliance on lack of remorse.

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

The appellants challenged a criminal appeal judgment from the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal and delivered an oral ruling the same day.

The Court held that the appeal should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons of the majority below.

The intervener participated, but the dispositive issue was resolved by adopting the appellate majority's reasoning.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for failing to comply with a Property Standards Order under the Building Code Act.

At trial, the appellant attempted to argue that the underlying municipal by-law was vague and that his property enjoyed legal non-conforming use status.

The appeal court upheld the trial justice's finding that these arguments constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the order, as the appellant had failed to exhaust the statutory appeal mechanisms available to him.

The court also confirmed that the doctrine of legal non-conforming use does not apply to property standards by-laws.

The appeal against the conviction and the sentence of a $7,500 fine and one-year probation order was dismissed.

The appellant challenged a criminal appeal decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Court heard the appeal and delivered an oral judgment the same day.

It held that the appeal should be dismissed substantially for the reasons of the majority in the provincial appellate court.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal allowed.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation causing death and bodily harm following a fatal motor vehicle collision.

In pre-trial motions, the accused sought to exclude Airbag Control Module (ACM) data and an Ambulance Call Report (ACR) under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging s. 8 breaches.

The court found the warrantless seizure of the vehicle and its ACM data was lawful under s. 489(2)(c) of the Criminal Code.

Although police breached s. 8 by failing to file a proper Report to Justice, the ACM data was admitted under s. 24(2).

Conversely, the court found the police breached s. 8 by obtaining the accused's ACR without a warrant via a PHIPA request, as the accused maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy in her medical records.

The ACR and any derivative evidence were excluded under s. 24(2).

The appellant was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 following a trial by judge and jury, and was sentenced to five and one-half years' imprisonment.

She appealed her conviction on four grounds: that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that character could not be considered; that the trial judge erred in allowing the jury to consider smaller quantities of a different drug; that the trial judge failed to provide a corrective instruction after the Crown's closing address; and that the trial judge erred in his instruction regarding the mistake of fact defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and also dismissed the leave to appeal sentence application.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered an application by Raymond LeBlanc, who appealed convictions for robbery, forcible confinement, theft, theft of a motor vehicle, and possession of stolen property, as well as his sentence.

The appeal was adjourned to allow the applicant to pursue an application for production under s. 683(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court also granted a s. 684(1) order appointing counsel for the limited purpose of this application, now characterized as a motion for directions.

The court determined that, due to complex privilege and confidential informant issues, the other grounds of appeal should be determined first.

The matter was converted to a solicitor appeal, with Michael Lacy appointed as counsel.

The Associate Chief Justice will case manage the matter as necessary.

The appellant, J.D., appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault and the sentence imposed.

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge misapprehended the appellant’s evidence, erred in applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework, or committed palpable and overriding error in rejecting the appellant’s testimony.

The court found that the trial judge materially misapprehended aspects of the appellant’s evidence, particularly regarding who suggested returning to the trailer and the analogy of “narcolepsy” for the appellant’s fatigue.

These misapprehensions were central to the credibility assessment and warranted a new trial.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as moot.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Norma Walton’s appeal from her convictions for theft over $5,000, finding that the trial judge’s repeated and intrusive questioning of the accused during her testimony, both in chief and in cross-examination, undermined the fairness of the trial.

The court held that the trial judge’s interventions usurped the role of counsel, created the impression of alignment with the Crown, and prevented the defence from presenting its case in an orderly fashion.

A new trial was ordered.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Aleksandr Shaporov’s conviction and sentence appeals for possessing and accessing child pornography.

The court addressed arguments regarding delay under section 11(b) of the Charter, the sufficiency and candour of the search warrant ITO under section 8, and alleged errors in the trial judge’s handling of the burden of proof and evidence.

The court found that, even after correcting for double-counted and misattributed periods of delay, the case’s complexity justified the time taken.

The trial judge’s findings on the ITO’s sufficiency and candour were upheld, as were his credibility findings and sentencing approach.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals of Habibullah Daniel Ahmadi, who was convicted of second degree murder for the fatal assault of Sara Anne Widholm.

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge erred in using Ahmadi’s out-of-court statements as circumstantial evidence of guilt, failed to consider critical evidence on intent, and improperly relied on after-the-fact conduct.

The Court found no legal error in the trial judge’s treatment of the evidence, including the assessment of intoxication and intent, and upheld the 13-year parole ineligibility period.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed P.P.'s appeal from convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault, finding that the trial judge erred in admitting irrelevant and prejudicial letters written years before the alleged offences and in permitting evidence of privileged marital communications without a valid waiver.

The cumulative effect of these errors undermined the credibility assessment of the defence and required a new trial.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment after shooting an intruder outside his home.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in leaving manslaughter with the jury, and challenged the jury instructions on self-defence and out-of-court statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding an air of reality to manslaughter based on the appellant's testimony and upholding the jury instructions.

On the sentence appeal, fresh evidence revealed the trial judge misspoke and intended to impose a six-year sentence.

The Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge erred in failing to correct his mistake immediately, and sentenced the appellant afresh to six years' imprisonment.

This is a sentencing decision following convictions for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The defendant caused a collision by speeding and running a red light, resulting in significant injuries to an elderly passenger, though causation of death was not proven.

The jury acquitted the defendant of impaired driving.

The court considered the defendant's pro-social background and remorse against the serious nature of the offences and his poor driving record, including recent breaches of court orders.

The Crown sought a three-year prison sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence for dangerous driving causing bodily harm, a $2,000 fine for the refusal offence, and a total driving prohibition of 2 years and 9.5 months, rejecting a conditional sentence due to the need for denunciation and general deterrence.