Nadia Thomas

The appellant appealed a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissing his appeal from a conviction for sexual assault.

The appellant argued that his guilty plea was equivocal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower court's decision, as the appellant had twice unequivocally acknowledged the accuracy of the facts supporting the constituent elements of the offence prior to his plea.

The young person appealed their conviction for robbery and an imitation firearm offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding overwhelming evidence of party liability under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code, as the young person approached the victim knowing of the plan to rob and encouraged the principal offender by menacing the victim.

There was also ample circumstantial evidence of liability under s. 21(2) for the gun offence.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his six-year sentence for two counts of dangerous driving causing death and one count of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

He argued the sentence was outside the acceptable range of two to five years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the trend toward more severe sentences for these offences to address general deterrence and protection of the public.

The court found the sentence fit given the appellant's aggressive driving, grossly unsafe manoeuvring, and lengthy driving record.

The Crown appealed the 18-month sentence imposed on the respondent for a home invasion robbery, arguing the trial judge erred in granting 1.6-to-1 credit for time spent in a treatment facility and overemphasized rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal agreed the trial judge erred in principle regarding the pre-sentence credit and that the sentence was outside the normal range for home invasion robbery.

However, based on fresh evidence of the respondent's exceptional and continued rehabilitation, the Court declined to interfere with the sentence, finding further incarceration would serve little useful purpose.

The appellants were convicted of unlawful confinement, and Mustafa was additionally convicted of uttering death threats and possession of a firearm.

They appealed their convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in relying on confirmatory evidence to support the complainant's testimony and that the verdicts were inconsistent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and reconciliation of verdicts were reasonable.

Lakatos and Mohammad also appealed their conditional sentences.

Mohammad's sentence appeal was dismissed.

Lakatos's sentence appeal was allowed, and his sentence was reduced to time served because the trial judge had incorrectly assumed he would serve his conditional sentence in the community, whereas immigration authorities had detained him for deportation.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering that he continue to be subject to a conditional discharge.

He argued for an absolute discharge, supported by a doctor's opinion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was not unreasonable given the appellant's continuing pattern of criminal behaviour, impulsivity, and need for monitoring.

The appellant appealed his conviction for child luring, arguing the trial judge erred by convicting him after finding the complainant told him she was 16 and appeared to be 16.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly considered all relevant circumstances in the 'reasonable steps' inquiry mandated by s. 172.1(4) of the Criminal Code and did not misapprehend the evidence.

The appellant appealed her sentence for a serious breach of trust.

She had no prior criminal record, had serious health issues, and made full restitution.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge failed to give proper consideration to the principle of restraint under s. 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to time served followed by six months of probation.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, obstruct justice, assault with a weapon, and assault, as well as his sentence of four years and four months.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to give a limiting instruction on prior consistent statements and by improperly applying Gladue principles during sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice regarding the prior statements.

The sentence appeal was allowed only to the extent of granting credit for 34 days of pre-sentence custody, varying the sentence on one count to one month consecutive.

The young person appealed their conviction for assault and robbery, arguing the trial judge erred in relying on the evidence of a tainted witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly instructed himself in accordance with Vetrovec and reasonably relied on independent confirmatory evidence, even though it did not directly implicate the appellant.

The appellants appealed their eight-year sentences, which were significantly higher than the Crown's recommendations at trial.

The Court of Appeal found the sentences constituted an error in principle given the Crown's recommendations, the appellants' ages, and their prospects for rehabilitation.

The sentences were reduced to six years.

In a subsequent addendum, the Court clarified that the two months of pre-trial custody credit granted by the trial judge applied to the reduced six-year sentences, leaving five years and ten months to be served.

The appellants appealed their 8-year sentences, which were significantly higher than the Crown's recommendations at trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the 8-year sentences constituted an error in principle given the Crown's recommendations, the ages of the appellants, and their prospects of rehabilitation.

The appeals were allowed and the sentences were reduced to 6 years for each appellant.

The appellant appealed his conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge's reasons which fully answered the issues raised.

The Court also declined to entertain Charter issues that were raised for the first time on appeal.

The young person appealed his conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.

The appellant argued that the legal chain of causation was broken by a mechanic who had improperly certified the vehicle's defective brakes as safe a month prior to the collision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's dangerous driving was a contributing cause of the cyclist's death outside the de minimis range, and that the mechanic's certification did not sever the causal connection.

The court also found the trial judge's reasons on causation were adequate.

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 appealed his conviction and sentence for a firearms offence.

He argued the trial judge erred by reversing the burden of proof in his jury instructions and by failing to discharge a juror who conducted an independent investigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury charge was proper when read as a whole and the trial judge reasonably exercised his discretion regarding the juror.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence of six months above the statutory minimum was not manifestly excessive.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board failed to apply the 'least onerous and least restrictive' test under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code when it denied a community living condition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board was aware of and applied the correct test.

The Court held that the evidence, including the appellant's continuing substance abuse and personality disorder, amply supported the Board's conclusion that a community placement condition did not meet the mandated test.

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 his convictions and sentence for sexual offences, as well as a S.O.I.R.A. order.

He argued the verdicts were unreasonable, the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, and a tape-recorded conversation was inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the tape was admissible and the appellant's responses were inculpatory, except for one count where the Crown conceded there was no evidence.

The appeal from sentence and the S.O.I.R.A. order were also dismissed.