OCA 2012

The appellant was acquitted at trial of income tax evasion after claiming her depression prevented her from filing returns.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred in admitting a doctor's letter as hearsay and relying on it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, agreeing with the appeal judge and further finding that the trial judge erred in law by relying on evidence he had previously ruled inadmissible to support the appellant's credibility.

The appellant rented a truck to transport a machine, which was damaged in a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant sought compensation from the truck lessor's insurer.

The insurer denied coverage, and the motion judge dismissed the action, finding that the policy excluded coverage for property carried in the vehicle.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the direct compensation for property damage provisions under s. 263 of the Insurance Act applied, treating the lessee as a third party.

The court further held that exclusions in the rental agreement and any misrepresentation of the cargo did not limit the appellant's right to recover under the statutory scheme.

The appellant appealed from a decision of the Superior Court of Justice granting the Crown's application for certiorari, which quashed a preliminary inquiry judge's order committing the appellant to stand trial for second degree murder and instead ordered him to stand trial for first degree murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded his jurisdiction by weighing evidence and choosing between competing inferences regarding planning and deliberation.

The Court found there was sufficient evidence, including a document showing a grudge and the circumstances of the knife attack, to support an inference of planning and deliberation.

The Crown appealed the trial judge's decision to stay charges against two accused involved in a marijuana grow operation.

The trial judge stayed the charges against the first accused because a Mandarin interpreter was unavailable on the final day of trial, citing judicial independence and unreasonable delay.

The charges against the second accused were stayed based on a finding that police breached the knock-and-announce rule and section 7 of the Charter during the execution of a search warrant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding the trial judge erred in principle and in law on both stays.

The stays were set aside and a new trial was ordered for both accused.

The appellant appealed an order finding him in civil contempt and sentencing him to 42 days in jail and a $40,000 fine for refusing to answer questions during an examination in aid of execution.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge did not err in refusing an adjournment, that the appellant knew which answers were inadequate, and that continued disobedience of court orders justifies incremental penal sanctions.

The sentence was upheld as reasonable given the appellant's repeated and flagrant disregard for the court's authority.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their motion to add four defendants to an action claiming damages from improper foreclosure orders.

The motion judge found the claims against the proposed defendants were statute-barred under the two-year limitation period, as the appellants knew or ought to have known of their involvement well before the limitation period expired.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, rejecting arguments that a ten-year limitation period applied or that the doctrine of special circumstances permitted adding the parties.

The appeal was dismissed.

The self-represented appellant failed to appear for the hearing of his appeal despite receiving notification from the court and materials from the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned and awarded costs to the respondents.

The appellant appealed his convictions for uttering a threat to cause death, criminal harassment, and breach of probation.

He argued that the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding the defence theory, the independence of confirmatory evidence, the examples of confirmatory evidence provided, and the instruction on post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's instructions to the jury.

The appellant was convicted of importing over 20 kilograms of marijuana after arriving at Pearson International Airport from Jamaica.

She appealed her conviction, arguing the trial judge improperly took judicial notice of common practices in drug importation cases to reject her credibility.

She also appealed her 18-month custodial sentence, seeking a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the trial judge properly relied on his experience and common sense in assessing credibility, and that the custodial sentence was appropriate given the commercial quantity of drugs and the need for deterrence.

The appellants failed to appear for their appeal, providing only a vague allusion to emergency dental surgery.

The Court of Appeal noted that the appeal appeared to be moot and that continuing the matter would unnecessarily increase costs.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as abandoned without costs.

The appellant appealed his sentence for assault, raising issues regarding pre-sentence custody credit under s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code and the trial judge's consideration of the victim's severe injuries.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the pre-sentence custody issue was not clearly raised below and the appellant was being released on parole that day.

The court also held that the sentence was entirely fit given the seriousness of the assault and the severity of the injuries.

The appellant was convicted of firearms and drug trafficking offences after police found him in an apartment with drugs and a loaded handgun.

At trial, the judge refused to allow the defence to call a third-party witness who was expected to testify that the drugs and gun belonged to him, ruling there was an insufficient nexus between the witness and the offences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge misapplied the test for alternate suspect evidence.

Where the defence proposes to call direct evidence from another person taking responsibility for the crimes charged, that proposed evidence itself constitutes a sufficient nexus.

Following the release of the main appeal decision, counsel for the parties requested that the Court of Appeal address the costs of the original motion.

The Court ordered that the costs of the original motion be referred to the motion judge.

The appellant was discharged at a preliminary inquiry on several firearm offences due to insufficient evidence of constructive possession.

The Crown successfully applied for certiorari and mandamus, and the application judge quashed the discharge and committed the appellant for trial.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge did not err in her consideration of the evidence as a whole, and that any error in assessing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence was not jurisdictional and therefore not reviewable on certiorari.

The Superintendent of Bankruptcy sought to appeal a Superior Court decision that found no operational conflict between the Highway 407 Act's vehicle permit denial provisions and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act's discharge provisions.

The Superintendent had not been a party to the lower court proceedings. 407 ETR moved to quash the appeal for lack of standing.

The Court of Appeal held that while the Superintendent does not have an automatic right to appeal as a non-party, the court has jurisdiction under s. 193(e) of the BIA to grant leave to appeal in exceptional circumstances.

Finding that the Superintendent was deprived of notice below and raised issues of systemic importance, the Court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal.

The appellant, a 17-year-old youth, was involved in a gang shootout on a crowded street that resulted in the death of an innocent bystander.

He was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced as an adult.

On appeal, he argued the verdict was unreasonable regarding his identification as a shooter and causation of the victim's death, and challenged the Crown's decision to require a jury trial under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury's verdict was reasonable based on the evidence, the mutual decision to engage in a gunfight established causation, and the Crown's decision to require a jury trial did not amount to an abuse of process.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal from a Divisional Court decision upholding a finding of conflict of interest against a municipal member.

The Court of Appeal held that section 11(2) of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act provides a complete code for appeals, rendering decisions of the Divisional Court final.

As no further appeal lies to the Court of Appeal, the appeal was quashed.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences arising from two home invasions involving the collection of drug debts, during which one victim was beaten and another was shot.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on unsavoury witnesses and flawed eyewitness identification, and lacked authority to convict him of aggravated assault on an unparticularized attempted murder charge.

He also appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to consider his Aboriginal status under Gladue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, amending the indictment to include the means of the assault to uphold the aggravated assault conviction.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence remained fit despite the trial judge's failure to expressly apply s. 718.2(e).

The respondents were acquitted of drug possession charges after the trial judge found a breach of their s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel and excluded their statements to police.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred in law.

The implementational duties under s. 10(b) are only triggered when a detainee indicates a desire to exercise their right to counsel, and there was no evidence that either respondent had requested a lawyer.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching involving a minor.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the timing of the assaults, failed to properly apply the W.(D.) test, ignored evidence about his apparel, and misapprehended video evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and application of the W.(D.) test were sufficient and supported by the evidence.