Nicole Rivers

The moving party sought a stay pending his leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal noted that the moving party had previously abandoned his motion for leave to appeal from the summary conviction appeal court judge’s dismissal of his appeal, and a subsequent application to reopen that leave was denied.

Consequently, the court found there was no active proceeding that could be stayed.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

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 abandoned his conviction appeal and appealed his 60-month sentence for sexual offences involving three youths and one adult.

He argued the trial judge erred by double counting his abuse of authority as an aggravating factor, since it was an element of the offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the specific context of the abuse, where the appellant used his position as fire chief to groom and abuse young men seeking firefighting careers.

The sentence was found to be fit and within the appropriate range.

The appellant, a psychologist, was convicted of three counts of sexual assault against three male patients during relaxation therapy sessions.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by admitting formal admissions made by his counsel in prior disciplinary proceedings, by allowing the similar fact evidence of each complainant to be used across counts, and by failing to properly instruct the jury regarding potential collusion and adverse inferences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disciplinary admissions were properly admitted as admissions against interest, the similar fact evidence was correctly weighed for probative value versus prejudicial effect, and the jury instructions were adequate.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by treating the complainant's lack of embellishment as a factor that enhanced her credibility, rather than merely noting it as an absence of a negative factor.

The Crown conceded the error but argued for the application of the curative proviso.

The Court declined to apply the proviso because credibility was the core issue at trial and the impact of the error could not be dismissed.

The conviction appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for drug and firearms offences, as well as his global sentence of 660 days.

He argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his testimony that the drugs were left by party attendees and that he received inadequate assistance as a self-represented litigant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these grounds, finding the trial judge's conclusions well-supported by the evidence.

However, based on a Crown concession, the court allowed the appeal on one firearms count and entered an acquittal.

The sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, convicted of criminal harassment, sought leave to appeal from a Superior Court of Justice decision dismissing his summary conviction appeal.

He also brought a fresh evidence application involving translated documents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fresh evidence application and denied leave to appeal, finding no issue significant to the administration of justice and no merit to the proposed appeal.

The appellant appealed her 8.5-year custodial sentence and a $185,000 fine in lieu of forfeiture following convictions for human trafficking and related sex trade offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit given the serious aggravating circumstances and the paramountcy of denunciation and deterrence.

The court also upheld the fine, concluding it was amply supported by evidence of the profits the appellant derived from her crimes.