Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a loaded restricted firearm, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter application.

The police found the firearm during a search of the appellant under the Cannabis Control Act after observing open cannabis in an idling vehicle.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the section 8 analysis, concluding it was reasonable for police to seize the appellant's identifying information before conducting the physical search.

Although the Court found a section 10(b) breach based on recent jurisprudence, it conducted a fresh section 24(2) analysis and concluded the firearm should not be excluded.

The applicant, having been convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to over 8 years in custody, applied for judicial interim release pending his appeal.

The Crown opposed the application primarily on the public interest ground.

The motion judge found that the applicant's proposed ground of appeal regarding the jury instruction on self-defence and unlawful act assault clearly surpassed the not frivolous threshold.

Finding no public safety or flight risks, the motion judge concluded that the public interest in reviewability outweighed the public interest in enforceability, and granted bail pending appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, break and enter, and other offences.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing exculpatory eyewitness identification evidence, accepting the testimony of a witness to whom he confessed, and dismissing a lost evidence application regarding a glove and mitten.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the identification evidence, deferring to the credibility findings regarding the confession, and upholding the factual findings on the lost evidence application.

Zachary Barton was convicted by a jury of firearms-related offences.

Police found a semi-automatic handgun during a warrantless search in a common hallway planter, and later ammunition and a bullet-proof vest during a warranted search of his apartment.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in concluding the handgun was not obtained in a manner that infringed his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the handgun was unconstitutionally obtained due to its causal, contextual, and temporal links to the unlawful police conduct.

As the trial judge had not fully determined the validity of the search warrant after excising the unconstitutionally obtained evidence, the Court of Appeal set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial on all charges.

The appellant, a tax return preparer, was convicted of fraud over $5,000 for filing false claims of charitable donations on behalf of his clients to a registered charity called Tractors for Daily Bread.

The appellant claimed he believed the donations were valid and had relied on the charity's director to verify them.

He was sentenced to 30 months in custody.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the admission of non-expert opinion evidence from a Canada Customs and Revenue Agency investigator, the trial judge's instruction on mens rea, and the instruction on prior inconsistent statements.

The majority dismissed the conviction appeal and sentence appeal, while the dissent would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching of his daughter.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by engaging in a credibility contest and misapplying the burden of proof under the W.(D.) framework.

The trial judge's reasons indicated he based his decision on whose evidence he preferred rather than determining whether the evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

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

The appellant appealed his convictions on nine counts of sexual offences involving two minors.

He argued that the trial judge's interventions during witness examinations created an appearance of unfairness and that the trial judge improperly minimized the impact of a false statement made by one of the complainants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's interventions, while numerous, did not create an appearance of unfairness or suggest he had pre-judged the appellant's credibility.

The court also held that the trial judge's credibility findings regarding the complainant were entitled to deference.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Summary Convictions Appeal Court dismissing his appeal from a sexual assault conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the case was essentially a matter of credibility and raised no issue of law with significance beyond the particulars of the case.

The court noted that even if leave were granted, the appeal would be dismissed on its merits.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board misunderstood the joint submission of the parties and inadvertently imposed a more restrictive condition than intended.

The appeal was allowed to correct the error by substituting the jointly submitted condition regarding community accommodations.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting the complainant.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred by relying on his passive demeanour and lack of eye contact to reject his testimony, and by allowing the Crown to cross-examine him on why the complainant would lie.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's reliance on the appellant's demeanour was legally flawed and vitiated the conviction.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to report a change of address.

The Court of Appeal held that spending weekends at a girlfriend's house while keeping personal effects at his mother's house did not constitute a change of address.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered by the trial judge.

The trial judge found that the search warrant was based on information obtained from a prior unreasonable search, rendering the subsequent search warrantless and in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The trial judge excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the seriousness of the breach.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's analysis and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a young person, appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault.

He argued a reasonable apprehension of bias because the trial judge had accepted a guilty plea from his co-accused six weeks prior to his trial, during which facts implicating the appellant were read in.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, noting the high threshold for reasonable apprehension of bias and that trial judges routinely disabuse their minds of prior prejudicial information.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part to quash a sentence for breach of probation, as the appellant was not convicted of that charge, but the sentence for sexual assault was upheld.

The appellant appealed from a sentence, challenging a probation term excluding him from Muskoka and the trial judge's refusal to vary a probation term prohibiting contact with the complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the geographic restriction appropriate given the appellant's intention to leave the area for rehabilitation.

The court also upheld the refusal to vary the no-contact order due to the nature of the offences and the short time since the appellant's release.

The appeal was dismissed without prejudice to a future application to vary.

The appellant pleaded guilty to his involvement as the central figure in a large-scale marijuana grow operation and was sentenced to 18 months' incarceration.

He appealed the sentence, arguing for a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's decision to prioritize general deterrence and concluding the sentence was demonstrably fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended his evidence and misapplied the W.(D.) framework by approaching the case on an 'either/or' basis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly weighed all the evidence, rejected the appellant's testimony, and accepted the evidence of the two young complainants who described similar incidents without collusion.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued that the trial judge should have declared a mistrial when a juror expressed doubt during polling, that an adverse inference instruction should have been given for the Crown's failure to call a witness, and that the jury charge was inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly exercised her discretion to allow further deliberations after the jury poll, that the jury was properly instructed on reasonable doubt arising from an absence of evidence, and that the jury charge was adequate.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for sexual offences.

He argued the trial judge rendered inconsistent verdicts by convicting him of some acts and acquitting him of others based on the same complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the allegations were logically severable and the acquittals did not imply the complainant was untruthful.

The court also dismissed grounds relating to incomplete Crown disclosure and the trial judge's approach to a conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual interference against his former partner's son.

The appellant argued the trial judge made several errors, including improperly using neutral evidence to buttress the complainant's credibility, applying an uneven standard to criminal records, improperly using a prior consistent statement, and misapprehending evidence regarding inconsistencies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material errors in the trial judge's assessment of credibility or evidence.

The appellant was convicted of importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

During cross-examination, the Crown questioned the appellant about his association with two individuals who had been convicted of drug importing, despite no evidence linking them to the appellant's charges.

The trial judge failed to caution the jury against drawing an adverse inference of guilt by association.

The Court of Appeal held that the improper cross-examination and lack of a limiting instruction resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

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