Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The applicant, Melissa Hart, sought to re-open her application for leave to appeal a 2015 summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit.

This was her third such application, each raising similar Charter arguments previously dismissed by the courts.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no material change in circumstances and dismissed the application as entirely without merit.

The court further prohibited Ms. Hart from filing any further documents regarding her 2015 conviction without written permission from a judge of the court.

The appellant, convicted of multiple firearms offences, appealed his convictions on two grounds: misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge regarding forensic testing, and unreasonable verdicts due to the circumstantial evidence not eliminating the possibility of another person hiding the guns.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's misapprehension of evidence was not material to the conviction.

It also found the verdicts were reasonable, as the inference of the appellant's knowledge and control over the hidden firearms was available given his operation of the studio and the nature of the hidden items.

The appeal was allowed in part, quashing the conviction on one count of careless storage of a firearm (Count 16) and entering an acquittal, but otherwise dismissed.

The appellant was convicted by jury of sexual assault, attempted choking with intent to overcome resistance to sexual assault, threatening bodily harm, and three counts of breach of recognizance following an attack on a complainant in an apartment building elevator.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and attempted choking, challenging the trial judge's instructions regarding evidence the jury could consider in determining whether the assault was of a sexual character.

Specifically, the appellant objected to the jury being instructed to consider evidence of his interactions with women at a nightclub earlier that evening and evidence of his communications with a body rub service approximately 30 minutes after the assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence was probative of the appellant's state of mind and intent, and that any prejudicial effect was adequately addressed through limiting instructions.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The complainant testified she was asleep when the sexual activity occurred and had no recollection of it.

The appellant accepted that sexual activity had occurred based on DNA evidence but claimed no recollection and denied he would engage in non-consensual intercourse.

The trial judge instructed the jury on the requirement that the Crown prove the appellant knew the complainant was not consenting.

The appeal raised three grounds: whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the knowledge requirement, whether the trial judge erred in instructing on circumstantial evidence, and whether the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, weapons dangerous, and assault, arising from an altercation with his partner's uncle.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's self-defence claim.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made material misapprehensions of evidence, including regarding blood on a swivel chair and the complainant's actions in preparing for the fight.

These misapprehensions were key to the self-defence analysis and undermined the trial judge's credibility findings.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

Four appellants appealed their convictions for various offences arising from a large-scale credit card fraud and money laundering scheme operating over several years.

The appellants were convicted of fraud over $5,000, participation in a criminal organization, identity theft, possession of property obtained by crime, and money laundering.

The appellants raised multiple grounds of appeal, including challenges to the single transaction rule, sufficiency of reasons, and the legal test for criminal organization.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most appeals but quashed certain convictions against one appellant that were entered without being charged, and corrected typographical errors in the trial judgment.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his conviction for driving over 80, arguing that a 13-minute delay in obtaining an alcohol screening device violated his right to counsel and that the failure to use a N.I.S.T. thermometer raised a reasonable doubt about the breath test results.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed grounds of appeal were case-specific, did not raise questions of general importance to the administration of justice, and lacked strong merit.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine and marihuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

He argued that the trial judge erred in finding sufficient grounds for the search warrant of his residence and that his section 8 Charter rights were violated because a Quebec search warrant was endorsed in Ontario without the proper record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the endorsing justice had sufficient information to carry out her statutory duty and that there was ample evidence in the Information to Obtain to link the appellant's drug activities to his residence.

The appellant, a licensed insurance broker, pleaded guilty to fraud after misappropriating approximately $227,000 from clients' accounts.

He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to mitigating factors, including his gambling addiction and health challenges.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the original sentence but admitted fresh evidence regarding the appellant's severe cardiac condition, which developed shortly after his incarceration.

Given the risk that he could not receive adequate medical treatment in prison, the court allowed the appeal and substituted a 12-month conditional sentence.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice, seeking to have charges quashed or a new preliminary inquiry ordered.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that the provincial court judge had already decided to convert the proceedings into a preliminary inquiry, a decision not subject to the current appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction, challenging the trial judge's findings of credibility regarding himself, his wife, and the grandmother.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by the evidence.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and attempted murder following a stabbing incident outside a tavern.

He appealed his convictions and his sentence of life imprisonment with 25 years of parole ineligibility.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the mens rea for attempted murder, as it requires a specific intent to kill.

Consequently, the attempted murder conviction was set aside and replaced with a conviction for aggravated assault.

The court dismissed the remaining grounds of appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's instructions on recklessness, responses to jury questions, or conduct of the trial.

The 25-year parole ineligibility period was upheld given the appellant's extensive violent criminal record and the unprovoked nature of the offences.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay proceedings against a young person due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Crown argued the trial judge gave undue emphasis to prejudice and erred in attributing delay related to closed-circuit television facilities to institutional delay.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in finding prejudice from bail conditions, it was open to him to infer prejudice from faded memories.

The Court also agreed that a substantial part of the delay regarding the closed-circuit television application was institutional.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that the summary conviction appeal court erred in failing to so find.

The appeal centered on the trial judge's rejection of the appellant's explanation for moving a bed, which the trial judge found was belied by videotape evidence.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the photographic copy of the videotape and concluded it was open to a reasonable trier of fact to reach the trial judge's conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence for fraud and possession of stolen property.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in principle by rejecting uncontradicted information in the pre-sentence report based on its sources.

Considering fresh evidence, including reasons from the Immigration and Refugee Board confirming the appellant's good prospects for rehabilitation, the Court allowed the appeal and replaced the remaining sentence with a 10-month conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life.

He argued that the trial judge erred by precluding him from eliciting exculpatory parts of his statement and by permitting the Crown to cross-examine him on a previous shooting incident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's ruling did not prevent the appellant from leading the exculpatory parts in re-examination, and that the previous incident was relevant to his knowledge of the other men involved.

The court concluded that any prejudice was minimal and caused no substantial wrong.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for the rape of a 15-year-old girl.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing to order production of the complainant's psychiatric records under s. 278.5 of the Criminal Code and in failing to set out the theory of the defence to the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the likely relevance test for the records was not met and the defence theory was speculative.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the serious nature of the offence required a penitentiary term despite the appellant's health and immigration consequences.

The appellant appealed his sentence for firearms offences and possession of a candlestick holder.

The Court of Appeal found the one-year sentence for the firearms offences was within an acceptable range, but the trial judge erred by imposing a consecutive ten-month sentence for possession of the candlestick holder, which merited only one month.

Taking into account pre-trial custody on a two-for-one basis, the Court varied the total sentence to time served.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and possession of stolen property arising from the robbery of a taxi driver.

At trial, the judge instructed the jury not to speculate on the absence of forensic evidence linking the appellant to the stolen items, and permitted the jury to rely on the taxi driver's in-dock identification.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury that an absence of evidence can raise a reasonable doubt, and by failing to adequately warn the jury about the dangers and lack of probative value of in-dock identification.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision regarding the validity of an 'alert' demand.

The appellant argued that the officer making the demand must know or believe the person was operating or in care and control of the vehicle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming prior authorities that such knowledge or belief is not required for an officer to make an 'alert' demand.