Michael William Lacy

The appellants, David Case and Celine Loyer, appealed their convictions for sexual assault, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable due to the complainant's "flashback" memory being unreliable.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's memory and the confirmatory evidence to be reasonable and not fundamentally flawed.

The dissenting judge would have ordered a new trial, concluding that the trial judge's reasoning regarding the reliability of the "sleeping flashback" was circular and illogical, and that the confirmatory evidence was overstated.

Both sentence appeals regarding a no-contact condition were also dismissed.

The appellant, Adam West, appealed his convictions for possession of child pornography and internet luring.

The appeal focused on the mens rea requirement for these offences, specifically whether recklessness as to the complainant's age was sufficient or if actual knowledge or wilful blindness was required.

The Court of Appeal, relying on its prior decision in R. v. Fox, affirmed that recklessness suffices for internet luring.

For the possession charge, the court found that the trial judge's findings of fact clearly established wilful blindness on the part of the appellant regarding the complainant's age, which is legally equivalent to actual knowledge.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, a police officer charged with breach of trust and fabricating evidence, brought a motion to compel the Crown to call a fellow officer as a witness.

The Crown refused to call the officer, citing concerns about his reliability due to inconsistencies in his statements.

The court declined to order the Crown to call the witness, affirming the Crown's discretion.

However, given the witness's materiality and allegations that his statement was improperly influenced by an investigating detective, the court exercised its exceptional discretion to call the officer as the court's own witness, permitting both parties to cross-examine him with certain restrictions.

A York Regional Police officer, Jordan Nesbitt, was charged with breach of trust, fabricating evidence, and attempting to obstruct justice following a vehicle search.

The Crown alleged he planted cocaine and falsified reports to justify an unlawful search.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, citing issues with witness credibility, the integrity of the scene, and plausible alternative explanations for the presence of substances.

The defendant was acquitted on all counts.

This decision addresses Ali Baek's Charter application to exclude evidence (10 kg of cocaine) seized from his residence, alleging breaches of his section 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court conducted a Garofoli review of the warrants and orders, finding that the initial tracking warrant and production orders were issued without reasonable grounds due to erroneous, speculative, and misleading information provided by the police.

The police conduct was characterized as serious, involving reckless disregard for Charter rights and a failure of full and frank disclosure.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on Baek's privacy interests outweighed society's interest in admitting the evidence, leading to its exclusion.

The appellant was acquitted of second degree murder and manslaughter at trial by judge alone after applying a chokehold to the deceased, who lost consciousness and died.

The trial judge found the Crown had not established the requisite subjective mens rea for murder, and that self-defence applied to the lesser included offence of manslaughter.

The Nunavut Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, finding errors of law in the trial judge's analysis of mens rea for murder and application of self-defence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the further appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that the Crown's right to appeal an acquittal under s. 676(1)(a) of the Criminal Code is limited to questions of law alone, that the Court of Appeal failed to precisely identify any such error, and that there is no legal rule that a chokehold is always an inherently dangerous act requiring specific findings on mens rea.

The trial judge's self-defence analysis correctly applied an objective standard under each element of s. 34 of the Criminal Code.

Paramedics Christopher Marchant and Steven Snively were convicted of failing to provide the necessaries of life to a shooting victim.

They appealed their convictions, arguing a flawed analytical approach, insufficient/contradictory reasons, and misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge.

The Crown sought leave to appeal their 18-month conditional sentences, requesting custodial terms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeals and the Crown's sentence appeals, upholding the trial judge's findings that the paramedics' actions constituted a marked departure from the standard of care and that the conditional sentences were fit.

The defendant, Gianmarco Di Luciano, was charged with refusal to provide a breath sample causing bodily harm following a motor vehicle collision.

The court, in a judge-alone trial, considered the requisite mens rea for refusal offences under s. 320.15(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that Parliament's 2018 amendment clarified the mens rea to be knowledge that a demand has been made.

The defendant was found to have known a demand was made and refused to comply, thus satisfying the mens rea for refusal simpliciter.

However, the court acquitted the defendant of the aggravated offence of refusal causing bodily harm, finding that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew or was reckless as to whether the collision resulted in bodily harm, as the risk of injury did not rise above mere speculation given the information available to him at the time of refusal.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction for breach of trust and his 18-month conditional sentence.

He had been acquitted of sexual assault involving the same complainant.

The appeal challenged the conviction on grounds of insufficient reasons, unreasonable verdict, and inconsistent verdicts, and the sentence on grounds of erroneous "double counting" of aggravating factors and insufficient reasons for rejecting a suspended sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficient, the verdict reasonable and reconcilable, and the sentence appropriate.

The appellant, Qiao Zeng, appealed his conviction for second-degree murder.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's jury instructions were confusing and inadequate, particularly regarding the two distinct routes to liability (aiding a planned murder and common intention in a kidnapping resulting in death) and the evidence relevant to each.

The blending of these routes and the lack of clear delineation between them for the appellant and co-accused likely confused the jury and may have led to a compromise verdict.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial on the charge of second-degree murder.

The defendant, Gianmarco Di Luciano, brought a motion to re-open a pre-trial Charter application, seeking to exclude evidence of his refusal to provide a breath sample.

The basis for the motion was an alleged material change in circumstances, specifically that the arresting officer, PC Shannon Swiderski, had embellished her testimony at trial regarding the odour of alcohol, thereby undermining her credibility and the lawfulness of the initial arrest and subsequent breath demand.

The court found that while the officer's trial testimony was indeed an embellishment, it did not constitute a material change that would have likely altered the original finding that she had honest, subjective, and objectively reasonable grounds for the arrest and breath demand.

Consequently, the motion to re-open the Charter application was dismissed.

The appellant, Trevor Basso, appealed his conviction for sexual assault with a minor and his sentence.

He also sought to admit fresh evidence regarding his intellectual disability and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fresh evidence motion, finding it would not have affected the trial outcome.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, as the trial judge's findings on the appellant's recklessness regarding the complainant's age were consistent with the mens rea requirements clarified in R. v. Carbone.

While the 12-month sentence was affirmed as fit, the court exercised its discretion to consider the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence for sexual assault under s. 271(a) of the Criminal Code.

Drawing parallels with R. v. B.J.T., the court declared the mandatory minimum unconstitutional under s. 12 of the Charter due to gross disproportionality in hypothetical scenarios.

The remnant of the appellant's custodial sentence was permanently stayed.

The accused, Shabbir Dossa, brought an application under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated end of trial was 24 months and 17 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown argued that portions of the delay were attributable to the defence or constituted exceptional circumstances (discrete events or case complexity).

The court found no delay attributable to the defence and no exceptional circumstances.

The primary reason for the delay was the Crown's unacceptable and unexplainable delay in providing meaningful disclosure, particularly the accident reconstructionist report and ITOs.

Consequently, the court found a breach of the accused's 11(b) right and ordered a stay of proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of an oral caution imposed by the College of Pharmacists Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee for overbilling at five pharmacies.

The applicant argued the caution was punitive rather than remedial, given his prior discipline for similar conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decision reasonable because the current conduct involved significantly more money, more pharmacies, and a different time period, thereby posing a greater risk to the public and demonstrating a need for further remediation.

The accused, charged with multiple counts including impaired operation and refusing to provide a breath sample causing death and bodily harm, brought a pre-trial application seeking to quash, amend, or sever the refusal counts.

The court dismissed the request to quash the counts based on issue estoppel and rejected the argument that the Crown was limited to a single refusal count under s. 320.15(4) of the Criminal Code.

However, the court granted the application to sever the refusal counts from the impaired and dangerous operation counts, finding that the interests of justice favoured severance to allow the accused to testify on the refusal counts without prejudice to the remaining charges.

The offenders, a police officer and an employee of the Public Guardian and Trustee, were convicted by a jury of defrauding an estate of over $830,000 using a forged will.

The employee was also convicted of breach of trust by a public official.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the complexity and duration of the fraud, the significant impact on the victim, and the offenders' abuse of their positions of public trust.

Both offenders were sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.

The court also issued restitution and forfeiture orders for the full amount of the fraud.

The defendant, Gianmarco Di Luciano, on trial for dangerous and impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm and death, applied for a directed verdict on the counts alleging bodily harm to two victims.

The Crown's case was in, and the defence argued that the evidence of soft tissue injuries and psychological sequelae was insufficient to establish 'bodily harm' as defined in the Criminal Code, and that objective foreseeability of injury was required.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that objective foreseeability of bodily harm is not an essential element for dangerous or impaired driving causing bodily harm offences, citing R. v. Creighton and R. v. K.L. While agreeing with the Crown that psychological injuries would not be considered for this ruling, the court found sufficient evidence from the victims' self-reports of physical injuries to allow the jury to consider the bodily harm counts.

The appellant, Dmitri Davidov, appealed his conviction for importation and conspiracy to import cocaine, and sought leave to appeal a non-communication order.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by improperly using inconsistencies between the appellant's pre-trial police statement and trial testimony to infer guilt, rather than solely for credibility assessment.

However, the court applied the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, finding the evidence of guilt overwhelming and the conviction inevitable.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

Leave to appeal the non-communication order was granted, but the sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the order was deemed a reasonable exercise of discretion to protect witnesses.

The accused was charged with impaired operation causing death and refusing to provide a breath sample following a serious motor vehicle collision.

He brought pre-trial applications alleging multiple Charter breaches and seeking to exclude evidence of his refusals to provide breath samples and data seized from his vehicle's Airbag Control Module.

The court found breaches of s. 8 (unlawful roadside breath demand), s. 9 (unjustified continued detention), and s. 10(b) (failure to hold off questioning).

Applying s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the accused's refusals at the roadside and in the booking area.

However, the court found that a subsequent demand by a breath technician constituted a 'fresh start' and admitted the final refusal.

The application to quash the search warrant for the vehicle data was dismissed.

The appellant, convicted of five counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking, one count of simple possession, and two counts of breach of probation, appealed his convictions and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The primary ground of appeal challenged the trial judge's dismissal of a pre-trial Charter application, arguing that his warrantless arrest and subsequent search violated his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

The appellant also contended that the trial judge erred in concluding that seized fentanyl and fentanyl/cocaine mixture were for the purpose of trafficking.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, affirming the trial judge's finding of reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on the totality of circumstances, including confidential informant information and police surveillance.

The court also upheld the trafficking convictions, finding the evidence overwhelming despite a minor error by the trial judge regarding a concession.