Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant was convicted of receiving a material benefit from and exercising control for the purpose of facilitating prostitution.

He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment, with 1.5:1 credit for pre-trial custody due to harsh conditions.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility and finding he exercised control, and that the sentence was unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or factual findings.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit given the appellant's lengthy related criminal record and the sentencing judge properly exercised discretion in awarding pre-trial custody credit.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for two sets of offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a mental health centre.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding he remained a significant threat to public safety, in rejecting a conditional discharge, and in failing to assist his progress.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant threat was reasonable given his lack of insight, resistance to medication, and continued substance abuse.

The Court also found no error in the Board's rejection of a conditional discharge and concluded there was no treatment impasse.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for killing his sister, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

He argued the Board failed to order the least onerous and least restrictive disposition by not directing the hospital to grant him indirectly supervised passes without requiring his participation in structured programming.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the hospital needed the appellant to engage in structured programming to assess his risk to the community, and that no treatment impasse existed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and assault against his former spouse, as well as his four-year sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting discreditable conduct evidence, dismissing his application to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity, and correcting his counsel's closing address which invoked prohibited twin myths reasoning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal and an application to introduce fresh evidence, holding that the proposed social media evidence did not meet the Palmer test for admissibility and the four-year penitentiary sentence was fit for serious domestic sexual assaults.

Following a successful Crown application to review the accused's release on bail under s. 680 of the Criminal Code, the Court of Appeal posted its reasons online.

Both the Crown and the accused raised concerns that the reasons should be withheld or edited due to a publication ban under s. 517.

The Court held a hearing and determined that the reasons must be published in full.

The Court found no express statutory authority applying s. 517 to s. 680 reviews, noted that the original bail judge's reasons were already widely available online, and concluded that publishing edited reasons would be unintelligible and contrary to the open court principle.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board's finding that he remained a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable, and that it erred in refusing to transfer him to a less secure hospital.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence of the treating psychiatrist and the appellant's history of violence.

The refusal to transfer was also reasonable given the hospital risk assessment indicating the appellant required better symptom control before moving to a less secure environment.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms and drug offences, and his sentence of ten years' imprisonment.

At trial, the Crown improperly cross-examined the appellant regarding his brother's immunity under s. 13 of the Charter.

The trial judge stopped the questioning, refused a stay of proceedings, and provided a strong limiting instruction to the jury.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding the limiting instruction sufficient to cure any prejudice.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in rejecting hearsay evidence of historical sexual abuse as a mitigating factor.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for certiorari to quash a committal order for charges of intimidating a justice system participant and criminal harassment.

The Crown requested summary determination under s. 685(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal to be frivolous and completely devoid of merit, rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding a lack of evidence for the 'without lawful authority' element and allegations of judicial bias.

The appeal was summarily dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference and assault against his stepson, arguing the trial judge misapprehended his explanation for a Facebook apology, reversed the burden of proof, and failed to resolve inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to reject the appellant's explanation for the apology.

The Court also held that the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof and was not required to resolve all peripheral inconsistencies in the evidence.

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 appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for three counts of assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at a forensic hospital.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's longstanding, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, lack of insight, and severe substance abuse issues—which predictably lead to decompensation and aggressive behaviour—supported the Board's conclusion that he remained a significant threat to the public.

The appellant abandoned his conviction appeal and appealed his 60-month sentence for sexual offences involving three youths and one adult.

He argued the trial judge erred by double counting his abuse of authority as an aggravating factor, since it was an element of the offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the specific context of the abuse, where the appellant used his position as fire chief to groom and abuse young men seeking firefighting careers.

The sentence was found to be fit and within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking, arguing that the police violated his Charter rights by unlawfully arresting him in his home without a Feeney warrant and conducting an unlawful search.

The police had entered the home without a warrant due to exigent circumstances after a 9-1-1 caller reported seeing a woman being assaulted in a vehicle parked in the driveway.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the police had objectively reasonable grounds for the arrest, did not require a Feeney warrant since they were already lawfully inside, and lawfully seized the drugs which were in plain view during a valid safety sweep incident to arrest.

The appellant appealed her convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, as well as her sentence of 12 months in custody.

The appellant had stabbed one individual and cut another during a physical altercation, claiming she acted in defence of her romantic partner.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding the trial judge properly assessed the self-defence factors under s. 34 of the Criminal Code and reasonably concluded her use of a knife was disproportionate.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge erred by failing to apply the sentencing principles applicable to youthful first-time offenders.

The sentence was varied to a suspended sentence with probation.

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

The appellant argued that a conditional discharge was appropriate and that his risk could be managed in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded a detention order was necessary due to the appellant's lack of insight into his mental illness, his substance use, and the need for proactive intervention to prevent decompensation.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats to burn property and breaching court orders.

The Ontario Review Board ordered her detention at a forensic mental health centre.

She appealed, arguing the Board erred in finding she posed a significant threat to the public and in failing to consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the appellant lacked community supports, had a history of non-compliance, and would likely revert to substance abuse and decompensate if released.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the motion judge erred in dismissing his section 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay.

The appellant contended the judge improperly attributed delay to his indecision over retaining private counsel versus Legal Aid, and erred in finding exceptional circumstances due to interpreter issues requiring multiple audits.

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

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abated due to the death of the respondent.

The appellants appealed their custodial sentences for production and possession for the purpose of trafficking in marijuana.

They sought a suspended sentence or an intermittent custodial sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle by the sentencing judge and held that the sentences were fit.

The appeals from sentence were dismissed, except that the victim surcharges were set aside.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, unlawful confinement, and breach of recognizance, as well as his 4.5-year sentence, arising from a home invasion.

He argued the unlawful confinement conviction violated the Kienapple principle as it was not a separate delict from the robbery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient evidence of domination and coercive restraint distinct from the robbery.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 4.5-year sentence reflected no error in principle and fell within the fit range, though the victim surcharge was set aside.