R. v. Largie, 2010 ONCA 548

SCJMay 15, 2025

The Superior Court dismissed conviction and sentence appeals for sexual assault where the appellant deceived victims into non-consensual sexual acts.

The appellant, Tony Sfeir, appealed his convictions and sentence for two counts of sexual assault.

The incidents involved deception of two complainants, JR and BG, who believed they were engaging in sexual activity with a woman, but were in fact deceived by the appellant.

The appeal alleged errors in the trial judge’s credibility analysis, application of the burden of proof, and sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no reversible error in the trial judge’s reasoning or application of the law.

R. v. Sfeir, 2025 ONSC 2912

SCJMar 7, 2025

Expert toxicology evidence regarding cocaine use was ruled inadmissible to prove impairment but admissible to establish blood sample continuity.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of expert evidence from Cara Shepard, a forensic toxicologist, in the trial of Aysar Younes for impaired and dangerous driving causing death.

The court found that while Ms. Shepard’s evidence regarding cocaine use was necessary and within her expertise, it lacked probative value on the issue of impairment or crash phase at the time of the collision and was therefore inadmissible for that purpose.

However, the court allowed the evidence for the limited purpose of establishing continuity of the blood sample.

R. v. Younes, 2025 ONSC 1400

OCANov 15, 2024

The Court of Appeal upheld a sexual assault conviction involving prior discreditable conduct evidence.

The appellant, D.S., appealed his conviction for sexual assault and his sentence of two years less a day.

The conviction appeal challenged the trial judge's admission of evidence regarding a prior incident of unwanted sexual contact with the complainant, which occurred when the appellant was a youth.

The appellant argued this evidence was highly prejudicial and had low probative value, and that the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) principles should have factored into its admissibility.

The sentence appeal argued for a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect for the prior incident evidence, noting its relevance to the appellant's state of mind regarding consent.

The court also found that YCJA principles did not impede the admissibility of such evidence in this context.

The sentence was upheld as proportionate, despite mitigating factors, due to significant aggravating features.

R. v. D.S., 2024 ONCA 831

OCADec 14, 2023

New trial ordered due to missing limiting instruction on a prior consistent statement.

The appellant, S.C., appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the use of the complainant's prior consistent statement (a Facebook message).

The Crown had invited the jury to use this statement as corroboration and the appellant's lack of response as evidence of guilt.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by not providing a limiting instruction, which was crucial given the Crown's impermissible use of the evidence and the central role of the complainant's credibility.

The court reiterated that prior consistent statements are presumptively inadmissible for truth or corroboration and require limiting instructions even if admissible under an exception or as after-the-fact conduct.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.

R. v. S.C., 2023 ONCA 832

SCJApr 13, 2023

Defendants acquitted of sexual assault and sexual exploitation due to reasonable doubt regarding complainant's credibility.

The defendants were charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a young person who stayed at their residence intermittently over several years.

The Crown alleged that the defendants were in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable and lacking credibility due to inconsistencies, admitted manipulation, and expressed malice towards the defendants.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were in a position of trust or authority, or that the sexual activity was non-consensual.

Both defendants were found not guilty on all counts.

R. v. J.J. and J.M., 2023 ONSC2360

OCASep 6, 2022

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence or trial unfairness regarding the trial judge's treatment of email exhibits.

The appellant was convicted of criminal harassment, assault, mischief, extortion, sexual assault, forcible confinement, and breach of probation.

He appealed, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence concerning post-offence emails and the testimony of a defence witness, which he claimed undermined trial fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence regarding the emails (as the overlooked email was not part of the evidentiary record) and no trial unfairness.

The court also found no misapprehension of the defence witness's evidence, as the trial judge's reasons reconciled it with the complainant's testimony.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal sentence was not granted.

R. v. Levely, 2022 ONCA 632

OCAJul 28, 2022

First-degree murder conviction set aside and new trial ordered due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder in the strangulation death of his intimate partner.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in leaving planned and deliberate murder with the jury, as there was no air of reality to the element of deliberation.

While there was an air of reality to constructive first-degree murder based on unlawful confinement, the Court found that the appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Trial counsel's decision to call a forensic psychiatrist, whose evidence introduced highly prejudicial statements by the appellant about his intent to kill, fell below the standard of reasonableness and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

R. v. Ally, 2022 ONCA 558

OCAJul 18, 2022

The Court of Appeal upheld the appellant's first-degree murder convictions, finding no errors in the hearsay rulings, Crown closing, or party liability instructions.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder after a retrial.

He appealed his conviction on three grounds: the application judge erred by dismissing the application to admit hearsay for a third-party suspect, the trial judge failed to give a sufficient corrective instruction regarding the Crown’s prejudicial closing argument, and the trial judge erred by charging the jury on party liability without factual foundation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's hearsay ruling, the trial judge's handling of the Crown's closing, or the party liability instruction, which was found to have an evidentiary basis and was akin to co-principal liability.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal on the party liability issue, arguing insufficient evidentiary foundation and inadequate jury instructions.

R. v. Johnson, 2022 ONCA 534

SCJMay 30, 2022

Directed verdict applications in first degree murder trial dismissed; jury charge issues resolved.

During a trial for first degree murder, the accused applied for directed verdicts of acquittal at the close of the Crown's case.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including cell tower data and security video, to place the accused at the scene of the shooting or assisting the shooters.

The court dismissed the directed verdict applications, finding sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to convict.

The court also ruled on several jury charge issues, declining to instruct the jury on co-principal liability, abetting, or the common unlawful purpose doctrine for second degree murder, and opting to provide an expanded instruction on circumstantial evidence.

R. v. Douse, 2022 ONSC 3228

SCJMay 17, 2022

Trial judge declined to inquire into jury deadlock and allegations of racism to preserve jury secrecy.

During deliberations in a lengthy murder trial, the jury sent several notes indicating they had reached unanimous verdicts for two accused and a unanimous verdict on a lesser included offence for the third accused, but were deadlocked on the greater offence for the third accused.

Five majority jurors sent notes attacking the reasoning of the minority jurors, including allegations of racism.

The trial judge declined to conduct an inquiry into the minority jurors' reasoning or declare a mistrial, finding that doing so would violate the common law jury secrecy rule and s. 649 of the Criminal Code.

The court accepted the unanimous verdicts reached by the jury.

R. v. Wight, 2022 ONSC 2950

OCAMay 9, 2022

The Court of Appeal upheld a manslaughter conviction and 15-year sentence for a husband who drugged his pregnant wife and allowed her to drown in a bathtub.

The appellant, Philip Grandine, appealed his conviction for manslaughter and his 15-year sentence in the drowning death of his wife, Karissa Grandine.

This was his second trial, the first conviction having been overturned.

The appeal raised three grounds against conviction: error in leaving a criminal negligence by omission theory of liability to the jury without evidentiary basis, error in refusing to exclude evidence based on issue estoppel (computer searches for "autopsy"), and inadequate jury instruction on the use of the appellant's out-of-court statements.

The appellant also argued the sentence was excessive and based on an unproven aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding sufficient evidentiary basis for the criminal negligence theory, no issue estoppel error, and adequate jury instructions.

The court also found the sentence was fit and reasonable, rejecting the "almost murder" characterization argument and the breach of trust argument.

R. v. Grandine, 2022 ONCA 368

OCAMay 3, 2022

A trial judge's late introduction of a new theory of liability rendered the trial unfair.

The appellant, a traditional Chinese medicine practitioner, appealed his sexual assault conviction.

The appeal centered on whether the trial judge erred by introducing a new theory of liability (removal of a towel exposing genitals) late in the trial, which differed from the Crown's primary theory (vaginal examination).

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's introduction of this new theory, and subsequent conviction based on it, was unfair to the appellant as it constituted a drastic change made too suddenly and too late, prejudicing the defence.

The court held that while judges are not confined to parties' theories, trial fairness considerations may preclude new bases of liability inconsistent with how the case was litigated.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

R. v. Lai, 2022 ONCA 344

OCAMar 1, 2022

The Court of Appeal upheld attempted murder convictions, finding jury instructions on party liability adequate.

The appellants, Darko Stojanovski and Daniel Stojanovski, appealed their convictions for attempted murder and their 18-year sentences.

The central issues included the adequacy of jury instructions on party liability (aiding), the introduction of alternative Crown theories, the use of prior consistent statements for identification, and the appropriateness of the sentences.

The majority dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the jury charge adequate and the sentences fit.

A dissenting judge would have allowed Darko's conviction appeal, arguing the jury instruction on the specific intent required for attempted murder by aiding was insufficient and misleading.

R. v. Stojanovski, 2022 ONCA 172

OCADec 17, 2021

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial due to an unbalanced jury charge and errors in applying the W.(D.) rule to exculpatory eyewitness evidence.

The appellant, Boris Panovski, appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and aggravated assault.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in the jury charge, specifically regarding the application of the W.(D.) rule to exculpatory eyewitness testimony, the overall inadequacy and imbalance of the charge, and the admission of certain non-recognition evidence.

The court determined that these errors were not curable by the proviso.

The appeal was allowed, convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

R. v. Panovski, 2021 ONCA 905

OCAMay 28, 2021

A new trial was ordered for a mother convicted of first-degree murder due to misdirection in jury instructions regarding cause of death and after-the-fact conduct.

The appellant, Cindy Ali, appealed her conviction for first-degree murder in the death of her profoundly disabled daughter.

The Crown alleged the appellant suffocated her daughter and fabricated a home invasion story to cover it up.

The defence argued the death was seizure-related or caused by a home invader, and that the home invasion was real.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in narrowing the jury's consideration of the cause of death to only suffocation and in unduly restricting the jury's consideration of alternative explanations for the fabricated home invasion narrative.

The trial judge's instructions effectively invited the jury to convict of murder if they found the home invasion story fabricated, without adequately considering other culpable acts (like failure to provide necessaries) or innocent explanations for the fabrication.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

R. v. Ali, 2021 ONCA 362

OCAFeb 25, 2021

Appeal allowed and new trial ordered due to improper admission of highly prejudicial prior discreditable conduct.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference against his wife and daughter.

At trial, the Crown introduced extensive evidence of the appellant's uncharged prior discreditable conduct, primarily occurring in China before the family immigrated to Canada.

The trial judge admitted the evidence to show animus and explain the lack of earlier reporting.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to properly assess and balance the reasoning prejudice of this evidence against its probative value.

The volume and highly discreditable nature of the uncharged conduct created a real risk that the jury convicted the appellant for his prior bad acts rather than the charged offences.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

Her Majesty the Queen v. Z.W.C., 2021 ONCA 116

OCAAug 5, 2020

Appeal dismissed; investigative necessity is not a constitutional requirement for production orders for historical text messages.

The appellant pleaded guilty to firearms trafficking after his pre-trial application to exclude historical text messages obtained via a production order was dismissed.

On appeal, he sought to withdraw his guilty plea and argued that the production order provision was unconstitutional because it lacked an investigative necessity requirement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that investigative necessity is not a constitutional requirement for wiretaps or production orders, and that the distinction between historical and prospective text message searches is not arbitrary.

Her Majesty the Queen v. July, 2020 ONCA 492

SCJOct 31, 2018

The court prohibited the Crown from advancing a transferred intent theory to the jury due to a lack of evidentiary basis.

The accused, Nerville Ferdinand, was charged with aggravated assault.

During his jury trial, the Crown sought to advance an alternative theory of liability based on transferred intent, arguing that Ferdinand intended to shoot a third person ("Jimbo") but accidentally hit the victim, Tristan Kelly.

The defence objected, arguing there was no evidentiary basis for this theory.

The court applied the "air of reality" test for theories of liability, similar to that for defences, which requires a limited weighing of evidence to determine if a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict based on the theory.

The court found no direct evidence of intent to shoot Jimbo and concluded that the circumstantial evidence, even viewed most favorably to the Crown, did not reasonably support an inference of transferred intent, as it would require speculation and contradiction of witness testimony regarding aiming direction.

The Crown was therefore prohibited from advancing this alternative theory to the jury.

R. v. Ferdinand, 2018 ONSC 6545

SCJAug 23, 2018

The court dismissed the applicants' motion for severance, emphasizing the strong presumption for joint trials and the risk of inconsistent verdicts.

The applicants, William Cummins and Matthew Moreira, charged with first-degree murder and robbery alongside Patrick Smith, sought severance from Mr. Smith for their joint trial.

The motion was based on the potential impact of Mr. Smith's statement to undercover officers, which they argued was exculpatory for them and necessary for their full answer and defence.

The court dismissed the application, emphasizing the legal presumption in favour of joint trials for co-accused acting in concert, the risk of inconsistent verdicts, and the truth-seeking function of a single trial.

The court found that antagonistic defences were likely to arise, and that carefully crafted jury instructions could mitigate any prejudice.

R. v. Cummins, Moreira and Smith, 2018 ONSC 5000

OCJMay 20, 2016

A youthful offender who pleaded guilty to multiple counts of attempted murder received a seventeen-year sentence.

The defendant pleaded guilty to twelve serious charges arising from two shooting incidents in northwest Toronto on April 15-16, 2015.

On April 15, he participated in an attempted murder at Mount Olive Drive.

On April 16, he participated in a more serious attack at Driftwood Court where five people were shot.

The defendant was sentenced to seventeen years imprisonment, with the sentence structured to reflect the gravity of the offences, the number of victims, the use of firearms, and the defendant's breach of probation and prohibition orders.

The court emphasized that the defendant's actions constituted attempted murder with the same moral culpability as murder, and that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount sentencing considerations.

R. v. Smith, 2016 ONCJ 565

SCJMay 12, 2016

The court ordered the excision of prejudicial police comments from the co-accused's voluntary statements.

The accused, Gurpreet Ronald and Bhupinderpal Gill, charged with first-degree murder, sought to edit their voluntary exculpatory statements given to police.

The Crown alleged the accused acted in concert to kill the victim.

The court reviewed legal principles for editing voluntary statements, emphasizing the balance between relevance, prejudicial effect, and the right to a fair trial in a joint proceeding.

The judge ruled that segments where the officer commented on the accused's credibility, advised them to tell the truth, or expressed opinions on co-accused's guilt should be excised as they are not probative and are prejudicial.

R. v. Ronald, 2016 ONSC 3127

considered

SCJDec 16, 2015

Blanket publication ban on trial evidence denied; ban on pre-trial motions extended to protect future juries.

The applicants, facing three separate first-degree murder trials, sought an unprecedented publication ban on all evidence to be adduced at their first trial (the Bosma murder) until the completion of their subsequent trials, arguing that pre-trial publicity would prejudice future juries.

Alternatively, they sought to extend the statutory publication ban on pre-trial motions.

The court dismissed the request for a blanket ban on trial evidence, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate a serious risk to trial fairness and that jury safeguards would be sufficient.

However, the court granted the alternative request, extending the publication ban on pre-trial motions until the conclusion of the subsequent Babcock trial due to the high risk of prejudice from overlapping inadmissible evidence.

R. v. Millard, 2015 ONSC 7561

SCJDec 16, 2015

Severance denied; joint trial required despite anticipated cut‑throat defences.

The accused brought an application under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code seeking severance from a co-accused in a joint first-degree murder prosecution.

The moving party argued that the co‑accused intended to advance a cut‑throat defence, introduce bad character and propensity evidence, rely on out‑of‑court statements implicating the moving party, and conduct aggressive cross‑examination, all of which would create overwhelming prejudice.

The Crown and co‑accused opposed the motion, arguing that limiting instructions could address any prejudice and that joint trials are strongly preferred where accused are alleged to have acted in concert.

The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that a joint trial would cause injustice or undermine the right to a fair trial.

Potential prejudice could be mitigated through evidentiary rulings and careful jury instructions, and policy considerations strongly favoured a joint trial.

R. v. Millard, 2015 ONSC 7761

SCJNov 13, 2015

Defence applications for a mistrial based on the Crown's closing address to the jury dismissed.

The defendants, on trial for first-degree murder arising from a home invasion and robbery, raised numerous objections to the Crown's closing address to the jury.

The defence argued that the Crown misstated evidence, improperly referenced out-of-court statements, and undermined the presumption of innocence, seeking a mistrial or the right to make reply submissions.

The court reviewed the objections and found that while some of the Crown's comments required corrective instructions in the final jury charge, the conduct did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.

The applications for a mistrial and for reply submissions were dismissed.

Her Majesty the Queen v. Tin Wai Hong, Mason Gillard-Gatza, Nathaniel Cain and Raphael Guerra, 2015 ONSC 6904

OCANov 3, 2015

Appeal from first degree murder conviction dismissed; Vetrovec warning adequate and third-party records non-production upheld.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder, arson, and rendering an indignity to a body after he and two accomplices tortured the victim and burned down the house to conceal the crime.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in dismissing an application for the production of a Crown witness's third-party psychological records, and in his jury instructions regarding accomplice evidence (Vetrovec warning) and fabricated statements.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred at the first stage of the third-party records analysis, production would not have been ordered at the second stage.

The court also found the jury instructions were adequate and dismissed the appeal.

Her Majesty the Queen v. Bradey, 2015 ONCA 738

SCJApr 20, 2015

Evidentiary ruling on redactions to co-accused police statements in a joint murder trial.

In a joint trial for first-degree murder arising from a home invasion, the co-accused applied to redact portions of two videotaped police statements made by two of the accused.

The applicants argued that the statements contained inadmissible hearsay that was highly prejudicial to the non-makers.

The court applied the principles for editing co-accused statements, balancing the probative value of the narrative context against the prejudicial effect.

The court ordered the redaction of gratuitous police comments, irrelevant bad character evidence, and highly prejudicial post-offence conduct (wiping a coffee cup), but retained the core narrative descriptions of the events, holding that limiting instructions would adequately protect the co-accused.

R. v. Hong, 2015 ONSC 2036

OCAJul 23, 2014

Gang investigation convictions upheld despite Charter and warrant challenges.

Five criminal appeals arising from a major gang investigation challenged informer-privilege procedures, wiretap authorizations, general warrants, covert searches, no-knock take-down warrants, a warrantless vehicle search, jury instructions, and expert opinion evidence.

The court held that an ex parte, in camera first-stage informer privilege hearing was proper, that Criminal Code ss. 186(1.1) and 487.01 were constitutionally valid, and that the wiretap authorizations and general warrants were lawfully issued and executed.

Although one warrantless vehicle search was conducted in an unreasonable manner and one aspect of the conspiracy jury charge was erroneous, the evidence was properly admitted under s. 24(2) and the charge error caused no substantial wrong.

All convictions were upheld and all appeals were dismissed.

Her Majesty the Queen v. Steven Lucas, Vinh Ban Chau, Ryan Coyle, Stefan Rosa and Jose Alvarez, 2014 ONCA 561

OCAOct 29, 2013

Appeal dismissed; an aider or abettor can be convicted of a more serious offence than the principal.

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder as an aider or abettor to a shooting during a drug rip-off.

The principal shooter was convicted of second-degree murder in a separate trial.

The appellant appealed, arguing the jury instructions were inadequate and unbalanced, and that his conviction for a more serious offence than the principal violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge adequate and affirming the principle that an aider or abettor's culpability is not limited by the liability of the principal.

R. v. Huard, 2013 ONCA 650

SCJSep 12, 2013

Certiorari denied; preliminary inquiry discharge for manslaughter upheld.

The Crown applied for certiorari seeking to quash a preliminary inquiry judge’s decision discharging a police officer from charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter arising from the fatal shooting of a suspect during the execution of a search warrant.

The Crown conceded the murder charge but argued the officer should have been committed to trial for manslaughter based on careless use of a firearm, advancing two theories: that the officer released the firearm onto a sling while grappling with the deceased, or that he had his finger on the trigger and unintentionally fired.

The Superior Court held the preliminary inquiry judge applied the correct committal test and did not commit jurisdictional error.

The evidence showed the officer’s conduct complied with training and police policy, and the proposed inferences of careless firearm use were unsupported and speculative.

Certiorari was therefore unavailable.

R. v. Cavanagh, 2013 ONSC 5757

SCJNov 13, 2012

Application to exclude Mr. Big confession dismissed; accused not under state control and confession highly reliable.

The Crown sought to admit a confession made by the accused to undercover police officers during a 'Mr. Big' operation.

The accused applied to exclude the evidence, arguing that the surreptitious recording authorizations were invalid, that his right to silence under s. 7 of the Charter was violated, and that the confession should be excluded under common law principles of abuse of process and prejudicial effect.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused was not in the functional control of the state, the police conduct was not abusive, the confession was highly reliable, and the wiretap authorizations were validly issued.

Her Majesty the Queen v. Roy Andrew Niemi, 2012 ONSC 6385

SCJOct 10, 2012

One‑party consent wiretap authorization upheld despite absence of notice provision.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought a constitutional challenge to s. 184.2 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the provision permitting one‑party consent wiretap interceptions with prior judicial authorization is unconstitutional because it lacks an after‑the‑fact notice requirement.

Relying on R. v. Tse, the accused argued that accountability and reviewability require notice to persons whose private communications have been intercepted.

The Crown argued that the provision remains constitutional because it requires prior judicial authorization based on reasonable grounds.

The court held that the Charter’s s. 8 requirements are satisfied by prior judicial authorization and that the absence of a notice provision does not render s. 184.2 unconstitutional.

The constitutional application was dismissed.

R. v. Niemi, 2012 ONSC 5684

OCAJul 25, 2012

Appeal from sexual offence convictions dismissed; trial judge made no reversible errors in evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against a child.

He appealed the convictions, arguing the trial judge erred by excluding evidence of the complainant's prior sexual abuse by another individual under s. 276 of the Criminal Code, failing to provide limiting instructions regarding prior consistent statements and extrinsic misconduct, improperly characterizing a defence witness's evidence as potentially 'scripted', and inadequately answering a jury question on the standard of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

R. v. M.T., 2012 ONCA 511

OCAMar 21, 2012

Multiple evidentiary errors required a new trial.

In a criminal appeal subject to a continuing publication ban, the appellant challenged convictions arising from historical sexual abuse allegations by multiple complainants.

The court held that the jury trial was rendered unfair by the admission of inadmissible hearsay, bad character, extrinsic misconduct, opinion, and some prior consistent statement evidence, together with inadequate limiting and curative instructions.

Although some relationship and narrative evidence was admissible for limited purposes, the charge failed to prohibit propensity reasoning and failed to properly confine the jury’s use of several categories of evidence.

Given that the case turned centrally on credibility and reliability, the errors were not harmless and could not be cured by the proviso.

The appeal from conviction was allowed, the verdicts were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

R. v. J.A.T., 2012 ONCA 177

OCAJan 24, 2011

Appeals from second degree murder convictions dismissed; no errors found in evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

The appellants were convicted of second degree murder following the beating death of a young man by a group of attackers.

They appealed their convictions on multiple grounds, including the admission of after-the-fact conduct, the voluntariness of police statements, alleged Charter breaches, jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, finding no reviewable errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and concluding that trial counsel provided effective representation.

Her Majesty the Queen v. Fadil Neil Mujku, Sam Nop and Vuthy Chak, 2011 ONCA 64

OCAJan 7, 2011

Leave to appeal denied for utility and locator company facing charges over fatal natural gas explosion.

The applicants, a natural gas utility and a locator company, sought leave to appeal a Superior Court decision that ordered a new trial on charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Technical Standards and Safety Act.

The charges arose from a fatal natural gas explosion caused when an excavator struck an unmarked pipeline.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed grounds of appeal did not raise questions of law alone that were essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice under section 131 of the Provincial Offences Act.

Ontario (Labour) v. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., 2011 ONCA 13