Nicole Rivers

The appellant, Roger Guppy, brought an appeal from convictions.

Despite being offered assistance by duty counsel, the appellant declined and remained silent when asked for submissions.

The Crown requested the appeal be dismissed as abandoned.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned due to the appellant's continued silence and failure to make submissions.

This appeal was dismissed as abandoned due to the appellant's failure to appear for the hearing, despite being notified multiple times.

The court was also informed that the appellant had previously failed to attend his criminal trial, which led to the underlying application for habeas corpus, and that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

The appellant, Raymond Gervais, appealed a four-year sentence for assault causing bodily harm.

The assault involved kicking a 66-year-old victim in the head, causing severe injuries, and the appellant had a lengthy criminal record.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge overemphasized denunciation and failed to respect the "jump" principle.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, stating the sentencing judge considered all relevant factors and the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the seriousness of injuries and the appellant's record.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

Darren John sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his appeal from conviction and sentence for knowingly uttering threats.

His primary ground for seeking leave was the alleged non-disclosure of material prior to trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the case did not raise significant legal issues for the general administration of criminal justice and that the proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit, particularly due to the appellant's failure to raise the disclosure issue during trial.

The appellant, convicted of human trafficking, appealed his sentence, arguing it was excessive and that he should have received additional credit for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic during pre-sentence custody and post-sentencing incarceration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge's decision, finding no error in principle.

The sentencing judge had applied a 1.5 multiplier for pre-sentence custody and a nine-month "Duncan credit" for harsh conditions and assaults in custody, but declined additional credit for COVID-19, noting that such credit cannot render a sentence unfit.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence fit and the judge's discretion reasonable.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 18 months, sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario after his initial appeal to the Superior Court of Justice was dismissed.

The appellant argued that the summary appeals court judge erred in deferring to credibility findings and in concluding that the trial judge provided sufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal applied the test for granting leave for a second appeal in summary conviction proceedings, which requires considering the significance of the legal issues to the general administration of criminal justice and the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal.

The Court found the grounds of appeal weak and determined that the case did not raise issues impacting the general administration of criminal justice.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by the Superior Court of Justice.

No one appeared for the appellant at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The applicant sought a panel review from the Court of Appeal for Ontario of a single judge's decision refusing an extension of time to appeal a summary conviction dismissal.

The applicant had been convicted of breach of undertaking and assault.

His initial summary conviction appeal was dismissed due to a lack of transcripts.

Subsequent applications for extensions of time and panel reviews were dismissed by single judges of the Court of Appeal (MacPherson J.A. and Coroza J.A.) on grounds of unexplained delay, lack of bona fide intention to appeal, and absence of apparent merit.

The panel upheld the previous decisions, finding no error of law and no justification to depart from the prior rulings.

The application for review was dismissed.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a 2009 finding that he was not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault with a weapon and criminal harassment.

The applicant filed the Notice of Appeal 11.5 years after the NCR finding.

The motions judge applied the test for extending time to appeal, considering the applicant's intention, explanation for delay, and the merits of the proposed appeal.

The court found no bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period, an inadequate explanation for the 11.5-year delay, and no merit to the proposed appeal.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder, sought review of a single judge's decision denying bail pending his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a Court of Appeal detention order.

The Court of Appeal panel dismissed the application, holding that s. 679(1)(c) of the Criminal Code does not apply to bail pending leave to appeal from a bail decision under s. 680, but rather to appeals from conviction/sentence.

While the Court could exercise its power under s. 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act to stay the detention order, the original release plan, which relied on specific sureties, could no longer be met, and substituting new sureties would constitute a significant refashioning of the original order, which was characterized as a "close call."

The appellant was convicted of procuring and advertising sexual services.

On appeal, the court found the trial judge erred in applying the actus reus for procuring by failing to consider the nature of the relationship between the accused and the complainant, as required by the interpretation of "control, direction or influence" under s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

Additionally, the trial judge erred by convicting the appellant for advertising on a theory of party liability that the Crown had disavowed, without providing the defence notice and an opportunity to respond.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered on both counts.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm and possession of a restricted firearm knowing possession is unauthorized.

He appealed his four-year sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in assessing an expert report regarding his post-traumatic stress disorder and in applying Gladue factors.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in assessing the expert's report, which was relevant to the circumstances of the offences and rehabilitation prospects.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced to three and a half years.

The appellant, convicted of second-degree murder and offering an indignity to human remains, appealed his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal grounds included the trial judge's ruling on solicitor-client privilege over seized notes, the dismissal of an alternate suspect application, and the failure to leave manslaughter as an available verdict to the jury.

The sentence appeal sought a reduction in the 17-year parole ineligibility period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding the conviction and the imposed sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's rulings or the sentencing decision.

The appellant, A.G., appealed convictions for assault causing bodily harm and the imposed sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge reasonably inferred the appellant's participation and encouragement in the assault as a joint principal, noting common participation in a continuing event.

The court also upheld the sentence, concluding that the appellant's failure to plead guilty and express contrition, unlike co-accused, justified a more onerous sentence.

Both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal were dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment in 2005 and 2006, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering her detention in a secure forensic unit.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing she no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and directed the Board to hold an expedited rehearing to consider whether a conditional discharge was the least onerous and restrictive disposition available, in light of fresh evidence that the appellant's sister was prepared to provide housing and community support.

The applicant sought review of a detention order made by a Superior Court judge under s. 680(1) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant was charged with two counts of first degree murder, one count of attempted murder, and one count of conspiracy to commit murder.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law, principle, or palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings regarding the primary and secondary grounds for detention.

The court upheld the detention order, finding the application judge's conclusions about the strength of the Crown's case and the fragility of the proposed release plan to be reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated September 14, 2018, which ordered his detention at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the Board erred in law or acted unreasonably in declining to impose a conditional discharge.

The appellant suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder with no insight into his condition, a pattern of medication noncompliance and substance abuse, and would not voluntarily return to hospital if requested.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board's decision and upheld the detention order, noting that the need to supervise housing and permit quick readmission if necessary are relevant considerations in determining whether a conditional discharge is appropriate.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for aggravated sexual assault in 2013, appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board requiring his detention in the secure unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant challenged the order as unreasonable and argued the Board should have intervened to break a treatment impasse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the disposition, finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety based on his history of elopement, substance use, and limited understanding of sexual consent.

The court determined that detention in the secure unit was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition and that rehabilitative programming was available in that setting.

The appellant appealed his sentence for aggravated assault and breach of probation.

Following sentencing discussions, counsel had agreed on a sentencing range of 18 to 24 months less pretrial custody credit.

However, due to inadvertence during submissions, the appellant's counsel asked for 15 months in addition to pretrial custody rather than less pretrial custody, resulting in an effective sentence of over 28 months.

The Crown agreed that the sentence should be set aside and that the agreed-upon range was appropriate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and imposed a sentence of 18 months less pretrial custody credit (414 days), resulting in a final sentence of four months from the date of sentencing.

A youth appealed his sentencing on charges of unlawful possession of a loaded handgun, unlawful possession of a prohibited weapon (sawed-off shotgun), and breach of recognizance.

The appellant contended that the youth court judge erred by not respecting the joint sentencing submission on allocation of pre-sentence custody, by failing to allow the appellant to speak before sentencing, by imposing a 15-month probationary sentence (which exceeded the statutory maximum of 12 months for the s. 95 offence), and by imposing a 7-year weapons prohibition.

The Court of Appeal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the probationary sentence on the s. 95 offence to 12 months while upholding the other aspects of the sentence.