Nadia E. Thomas

The respondent, a court officer, was convicted of assaulting a young person in his custody.

The trial judge imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence and two years' probation.

On appeal, the summary conviction appeal judge substituted a conditional discharge.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the trial judge's sentence, holding that a custodial sentence is required for court officers who commit premeditated assaults on vulnerable prisoners, emphasizing the principles of deterrence and denunciation for breaches of trust.

The appellants were committed for trial on fraud-related charges and appealed the dismissal of their motion to quash the committals.

The appellant Suissa argued that the preliminary inquiry judge's reasons were inadequate and constituted jurisdictional error.

The Court of Appeal held that inadequate reasons for committal are not per se a jurisdictional error and that the application judge properly reviewed the record to find a basis for committal.

The appellant Tehrani argued there was insufficient evidence for committal, but the Court found a sufficient evidentiary basis existed.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of extortion after demanding the complainant purchase the distribution rights to a book he wrote about their past criminal involvement, threatening to distribute it to her community if she refused.

He appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding the definition of a threat and the defence of reasonable justification, and failed to adequately review the complainant's cross-examination evidence where she admitted she was not explicitly threatened.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge adequate and the failure to review the cross-examination evidence not fatal given the short trial and the legal definition of a threat.

Borins J.A. dissented, finding the trial judge's failure to review the exculpatory cross-examination evidence constituted reversible error.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in a medium security setting at the hospital, despite submissions from the hospital and the Attorney General that his detention in a minimum security setting should be continued.

The Court of Appeal found no legal error and held that the disposition was reasonable given the appellant's worsened mental condition, recent elopement, violent ideation, and high risk for future elopements and violent recidivism.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to call his wife as an alibi witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that trial counsel had reasonable grounds for not calling the witness and that the appellant failed to establish prejudice.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence of two years less a day was within the appropriate range for the calculated and cold-blooded offence.

The Crown appealed an order staying proceedings against a young offender.

The trial judge had granted the stay due to concerns over the slow pace of Crown disclosure and the circumstances of the youth's custody.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a stay is a remedy of last resort and was not appropriate in this case, as it was not directly responsive to the violation and should not be used to discipline the Crown or police.

The stay was set aside and the matter remitted to the Youth Court.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence of four months' imprisonment.

He argued the verdict was unreasonable, sought to introduce fresh evidence, and contended the trial judge erred by not imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

The conviction appeal was dismissed as the verdict was reasonable.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding no error in principle given the appellant's history of abuse and previous conviction for the same offence.