Nicole Rivers

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and sexual assault of his then-wife, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the complainant's motive to fabricate, the meaning of a WhatsApp message, and prior disclosure to her family.

The Court of Appeal found no misapprehension of evidence, concluding the trial judge's findings were supported by the record.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, but the victim surcharge was set aside on consent.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault, assault, and choking following a judge-alone trial.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in assessing his credibility by finding he structured his testimony to meet the allegations and by misapprehending his evidence regarding the choking allegation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred in law by turning the appellant's constitutional right to be present at his trial into an evidentiary trap.

The court also found the trial judge misapprehended the appellant's evidence by concluding he testified to having no memory of choking the complainant, when he had consistently denied the act.

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.