Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention.

He argued the Board unreasonably found he posed a significant threat to public safety, applied the wrong legal test, and acted unfairly by copying portions of its reasons from a previous year's hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence of the appellant's treatment-resistant schizophrenia, lack of insight, and recent aggressive behaviour supported the significant threat finding.

While the Board's copying of previous reasons was ill-advised, the reasons as a whole demonstrated a firm grasp of the current evidence and did not warrant a new hearing.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal decision upholding his conviction for care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing identification evidence and admitting his statement to police.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error by the summary conviction appeal judge and concluding the case lacked significance to the administration of justice.

The appellant was convicted of historical sexual assault and sexual interference against a complainant over whom he held a position of trust.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in failing to reconcile inconsistencies, overemphasizing his demeanour during a police interview, and assigning too much weight to the complainant's youthfulness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and findings were open to him.

An appellant who was found not criminally responsible appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention in a forensic hospital.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge but the primary issue was whether the Board should exercise its inquisitorial powers to investigate alternative community residential arrangements.

The Court of Appeal found that while a conditional discharge was not available due to the appellant's significant risk to public safety, the Board had erred in failing to properly exercise its inquisitorial duties to break the residential impasse.

The Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching, arguing the trial judge's reasons were insufficient, misapprehended the evidence, and applied an uneven standard of scrutiny.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons permitted meaningful appellate review and properly assessed the credibility of the complainant and the appellant's police statement.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual touching and sexual assault of a young child.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the first incident occurred in his truck and that this error tainted the credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that even if the trial judge erred regarding the location of the first incident, it did not play an essential part in the reasoning process or taint the overall credibility assessment.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for an unprovoked and brutal aggravated assault, arguing it was manifestly unfit and failed to give proper effect to denunciation and deterrence.

The sentencing judge had effectively imposed a low penitentiary sentence after giving credit for pre-sentence custody, emphasizing the principle of rehabilitation to give the respondent one last chance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion regarding the respondent's rehabilitative prospects and seeing no basis for appellate intervention.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder for the strangulation of a 54-year-old woman.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying heavily on the testimony of the appellant's girlfriend, who stated he returned home with blood on his clothes and said something terrible had happened to the victim.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence of his girlfriend recanting her trial testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding the recantation was fabricated and the product of collaboration between the appellant and the witness.

The Court also dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdict was reasonable and the trial judge made no reversible errors, and upheld the 13-year period of parole ineligibility.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder on the basis that she aided or abetted the principal offender in fatally stabbing the deceased.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge made three errors in the jury charge: omitting the requirement of the principal's subjective foresight of death, failing to focus the jury on when the principal's intention was formed, and improperly instructing the jury on post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal agreed that these errors amounted to errors of law that could have had a significant impact on the verdict.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed her convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of an imitation weapon, as well as her 36-month custodial sentence.

She argued her arrest was unlawful and challenged the admission of evidence obtained from her cell phone post-arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest based on informant tips and surveillance.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the offences were part of a commercial enterprise and the sentence properly reflected denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant appealed their sentence, arguing that the global sentence was unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence entirely fit given the appellant's substantial criminal record, the seriousness of the fraud offences, and the multiplicity of breach of probation offences.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter after arming himself with a handgun and shooting into a vehicle, killing the victim.

The trial judge characterized the offence as close to murder and imposed an effective sentence of 19 years (10 years plus 9 years pre-trial custody credit).

The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing it was beyond the range and violated the parity rule, as the person who hired him received 14 years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was within the range for a near-murder manslaughter and the higher sentence was justified by the appellant's role.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge failed to explicitly apply the second step of the W.(D.) framework.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge omitted the second step, her overall reasons, including her strong credibility findings, demonstrated she considered whether the defence evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also rejected arguments regarding the burden of proof, motive to lie, and the risk of innocent collusion between the complainants.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault with a weapon and break and enter, as well as his sentence of 30 days intermittent.

He argued the trial judge misapplied the W.D. framework, overemphasized the complainant's lack of motive to fabricate, misapprehended evidence regarding the assault with a gold chain, and erred in accepting the complainant's evidence about the break and enter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or factual findings, and held the sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction on the basis of undisclosed evidence.

At trial, evidence suggested a witness had been charged but the charges were dropped due to a 'glitch', when in fact the witness was never charged.

The Court of Appeal applied the principles from R. v. Dixon and found that the failure to disclose this information impaired the appellant's right to make full answer and defence, as counsel could not adequately explore whether the witness's testimony was a quid pro quo for not being charged.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the police officers improperly made a blood demand instead of a breath demand.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the officers had reasonable and probable grounds to believe a breath sample was impractical because the appellant was in the hospital being treated for a serious bleeding head laceration and was belligerent.

The appellant appealed his conviction for three counts of assault causing bodily harm by the discharge of a firearm arising from a nightclub shooting.

At trial, the primary defence was identity, but on appeal, the appellant solely argued the issue of self-defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that based on the trial judge's findings of fact, the defence of self-defence under sections 34(2) or 37 of the Criminal Code could not assist the appellant.

The Crown appealed a sentence of 21 months' incarceration and a five-year driving prohibition imposed on the respondent for dangerous driving causing death and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The respondent ran a red light at high speed, struck and killed a pedestrian, dragged her 190 meters, and fled the scene.

He had a lengthy record of driving offences.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence demonstrably unfit, emphasizing the need for general deterrence and protection of the public.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was increased to four years and three months (after credit for pre-trial custody) along with a lifetime driving prohibition.

The appellant pleaded guilty to five counts of sexual assault with a weapon against his former spouse and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, consecutive to a sentence he was already serving for a separate sexual assault.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding he was a sexual sadist based on expert testimony and that the sentence violated the totality principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the 10-year sentence was fit and appropriate given the brutal, protracted, and horrendous nature of the offences, regardless of the sexual sadism finding.

The respondent was convicted at trial of threatening his wife and possessing a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace following a domestic dispute over property.

The summary conviction appeal judge quashed the convictions, finding them unreasonable.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the convictions, holding that the summary conviction appeal judge erred in law by substituting his own view of the evidence.

The trial judge's findings that the respondent uttered a threat and formed the unlawful purpose to use his pocket knife as a weapon prior to its use were supported by the evidence and not unreasonable.