Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge failed to resolve reliability concerns regarding the complainant's testimony and misapprehended material evidence by confusing details between two separate sexual assault allegations.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's reasons, read as a whole, adequately explained the differing verdicts for the two incidents, noting that the convicted offence was reported immediately unlike the acquitted offence which relied on a recovered memory.

The Court concluded that while the trial judge made a factual error regarding which incident involved an admission of embarrassment over a forgotten detail, this misapprehension did not play an essential part in the reasoning process leading to the conviction.

The appellant appealed the restitution and fine in lieu of forfeiture orders imposed following his conviction for five counts of fraud over $5,000.

He argued the orders were unfair and based on a misinterpretation of the fraud amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant did not contest the restitution order at sentencing and the preconditions for the fine in lieu of forfeiture were met.

The three-year sentence in default of payment was the statutory minimum.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence for firearm and drug-related offences, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the impact of incarceration on his relationship with his children and resulting family separation.

The appellant requested a modest three‑month reduction from the imposed four‑year sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge was aware of the appellant’s parental status and the inevitable interruption to family relationships caused by incarceration.

The court found no error in principle and concluded that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Pierre Dartiguenave from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Crown requested dismissal on the basis that Mr. Dartiguenave was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Board, and the appellant could not be located.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for manslaughter, appealed the Ontario Review Board's detention order for failing to include a community living term.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable because it did not adequately balance all factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, specifically the appellant's reintegration into society and mental condition, beyond public safety concerns.

The court emphasized the importance of including a community living term to address housing waitlists and facilitate long-term reintegration, even if not immediately exercisable, especially when there is no evidence of public safety risk.

The appeal was allowed, and the disposition order was amended to include a community living term with conditions.

The appellant, Rashawn Salmon, appealed his convictions for various drug and firearms offences, arguing that the reviewing judge erred in dismissing his pre-trial Charter motion.

Specifically, he challenged the lawfulness of search warrants for his condo unit and vehicle, alleging s. 8 breaches regarding CCTV footage and the sufficiency of grounds for the warrants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the reviewing judge's conclusions that the police obtained information from authorized persons, that there were reasonable grounds for the search warrants, and that the vehicle seizure was lawful.

The court reiterated that a piecemeal approach to warrant review is inappropriate and that property management can consent to police access to common areas.

This is an appeal from conviction and sentence.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of his s. 11(b) Charter application, arguing the trial judge erred in characterizing a 60-day period as an exceptional COVID-19 delay without evidence and in double-counting a 7-day defence delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both arguments, affirming the trial judge's consideration of local circumstances for the COVID-19 delay and finding no double-counting.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal his 6-month custodial sentence, requesting a conditional sentence.

Leave was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed, as the Court found no error in principle or unfitness.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed the Ontario Review Board's detention order, arguing the Board erred in finding she posed a significant public safety risk and seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion on significant risk was reasonable, supported by clinical assessment, and that a conditional discharge was not appropriate given the appellant's limited insight and inability to be monitored in the community.

The court also found the Board adequately considered Gladue principles.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering detention in a secure forensic unit became moot upon the appellant's death while in custody.

The Court of Appeal considered whether special circumstances warranted proceeding with the appeal despite the general rule that appeals abate upon the death of the appellant.

Finding no systemic issues, legal questions of general public importance, or collateral consequences that would justify exercising discretion to hear the appeal, the court dismissed the appeal as abated.

The appellant was convicted at trial of producing methamphetamine and possessing it for the purpose of trafficking following a fire at an industrial complex containing a clandestine drug lab.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on the appellant's fingerprint on a pop can found in the unit and a cell phone found in the lab that the trial judge concluded belonged to the appellant.

The phone contained incriminating evidence including photographs of equipment used in methamphetamine production.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: improper reliance on certified court documents to link him to the phone, misapprehension of evidence regarding photographs on the phone, and that the conviction on the possession for trafficking count was unreasonable or insufficiently reasoned.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's reasoning and that the circumstantial evidence cumulatively supported the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed from a judgment denying certiorari to quash an order committing him to trial on charges of first-degree murder and participating in a criminal organization.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's refusal to grant certiorari.

The preliminary inquiry judge properly considered the evidence and correctly determined that the Crown had met the minimal threshold required to justify committal.

The reviewing court's task was solely to consider whether there was any evidence upon which the committing justice could form an opinion that the evidence was sufficient to put the accused on trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for offences relating to the stabbing of a victim and his sentence.

The trial judge had provided extensive reasons rejecting the appellant's evidence, accepting the victim's evidence, and finding the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's treatment of corroborative evidence, including knife evidence and Facebook evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and forcible confinement.

The trial judge imposed a sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

The appellant abandoned his sentence appeal and challenged only the convictions on three grounds: (1) the trial judge's instructions on the timing of complaints in sexual assault cases; (2) the trial judge's review of evidence relating to two separate incidents on both sexual assault counts; and (3) the overall fairness and balance of the jury charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's instructions when considered in the context of the trial as a whole.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault with a weapon (a lamp) entered by Justice Jane E. Kelly on May 15, 2012.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: misapprehension of evidence, reversal of the burden of proof, and insufficiency of reasons/unreasonableness of the verdict.

The Court of Appeal found no misapprehension of evidence, no reversal of the burden of proof, and that the trial judge's reasons adequately addressed the evidentiary concerns and met the functional requirements for appellate review.

The appeal was dismissed.

An appeal from a conviction for assault causing bodily harm and the sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in the conviction.

The Court of Appeal accepted the Crown's concession and set aside the conviction for assault causing bodily harm, substituting in its place a conviction for common assault.

The sentence had already been served.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing there was a misunderstanding over the view expressed by the pre-trial judge as to the appropriate sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting it could not resolve the conflict in the affidavits and reminding the bar to place the essence of pre-trial plea discussions on the record.

The term of imprisonment and probation were found to be appropriate.

The appellant appealed his sentence.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred by failing to give the usual 2-to-1 enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, which the trial Crown had not opposed.

The Court of Appeal agreed, allowed the appeal in part, and reduced the sentence to time served.

The court also clarified that the restitution order did not provide for restitution to the James Estate and found no other errors.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Crown had proceeded at trial on the basis that the appellant's ex-wife was entitled to an interest in the former matrimonial home, which was erroneous in law.

Because no calculation of equalization of property was performed, the Crown failed to establish that the complainant was entitled to any equalization payment, thereby failing to prove the essential element of deprivation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing the summary conviction appeal judge erred in upholding the trial judge's finding that he was in care and control of his vehicle after crashing into a stone gate post.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The trial judge properly concluded the appellant retained care and control based on his proximity to the vehicle, possession of the keys, declared intention to continue driving, and repeated attempts to extricate the vehicle.

The appellant appealed from a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision upholding his conviction for criminal harassment.

He argued that the trial judge's refusal to grant adjournments to allow him to retain counsel resulted in a miscarriage of justice, and that the trial judge failed to adequately assist him as a self-represented accused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had ample opportunity to retain counsel during a four-month adjournment and that the refusal of further adjournments was justified to prevent extending the complainant's ordeal.

The court also found no error in the sentence imposed.