Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Mauro Granados-Arana’s conviction appeal for first degree murder, finding no reversible error in the trial judge’s Vetrovec instructions regarding unsavoury witnesses.

The court allowed the sentence appeal, quashing the order that parole ineligibility run consecutively to a prior sentence, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Bissonnette.

The period of parole ineligibility will now run concurrently.

The appellant was found guilty of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The appeal challenged the reasonableness of the verdict, specifically the finding of constructive possession of fentanyl located in a backpack in the trunk of a car the appellant was driving.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge's inference of guilt was reasonable, given the circumstantial evidence, the high value of the fentanyl, and the absence of an exculpatory explanation from the appellant.

The appellant, S.S., appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference involving his niece, E.B., based on the admission of E.B.'s unsworn, videotaped police statement as hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in assessing the threshold reliability of the statement by downplaying the importance of cross-examination and misapprehending evidence regarding E.B.'s potential motive to fabricate.

The court concluded that without adequate substitutes for cross-examination, the statement did not meet the high standard for threshold reliability, especially given concerns about E.B.'s perception, sincerity, and inconsistent statements.

The appeal was allowed, and an acquittal entered.

The appellant, A.G., appealed convictions for assault causing bodily harm and the imposed sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge reasonably inferred the appellant's participation and encouragement in the assault as a joint principal, noting common participation in a continuing event.

The court also upheld the sentence, concluding that the appellant's failure to plead guilty and express contrition, unlike co-accused, justified a more onerous sentence.

Both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal were dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter in the death of a five-and-a-half-month-old child.

He appealed on the sole ground that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the Crown and defence evidence.

The appellant did not dispute that the child died from intentionally applied significant force causing a fatal brain injury, nor that the child's body was covered in extensive bruising.

Only the appellant and the child's mother had the opportunity to cause the fatal injury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not apply uneven scrutiny and was entitled to make the credibility findings and reach the decision she did.

The appellant appealed his convictions on three counts of fraud over $5,000 and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000, as well as seeking leave to appeal his custodial sentence of two years less a day.

The sole ground of appeal was that the trial judge erred in dismissing the appellant's s. 11(b) Charter application regarding delay.

The trial judge found that the delay, which exceeded the Jordan presumptive ceiling of 18 months for provincial court trials, was justified by exceptional circumstances including the appellant's inability to represent himself and the complexity of the case.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction appeal dismissal and granted leave to appeal sentence only to set aside the mandatory victim fine surcharge order.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's sentencing decision and characterized the sentence as lenient in the extreme.

While acknowledging the appellant's efforts to remain drug-free for ten months, the court dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, challenging the scope of a no-contact provision that included the Toronto Star.

The Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence to justify the continued inclusion of the Toronto Star in the condition, noting the appellant's history of threatening and harassing behaviour targeting media agencies.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to minor modifications proposed by the respondents.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed on the respondent for historical sexual offences against his foster daughter.

The offences occurred over 35 years prior, resulting in the complainant's pregnancy at age 15.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge made several errors in principle, including improperly relying on an unproven finding about when the respondent learned of the pregnancy, misapplying the framework for conditional sentences, and inappropriately treating health issues and social stigma as mitigating factors.

The Court held the sentence was manifestly unfit given the profound breach of trust and the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The appeal was allowed and a three-year custodial sentence was imposed, with one year of credit given for time served under the conditional sentence.

The self-represented appellant applied to review two orders: one fixing the date for his appeals and another dismissing his application for the appointment of specific counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant had previously dismissed or refused to cooperate with three appointed counsel, leading to the appointment of amicus curiae.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applications, finding that the appointment of amicus was appropriate to control the court's process and prevent further frustration of the proceedings, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Ontario v. Criminal Lawyers' Association.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

On consent of both the Crown and the appellant, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and varied the sentence to time served plus a 15-month period of probation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual touching of a child under the age of fourteen.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence on key points and overemphasized irrelevant considerations when disbelieving the appellant.

Specifically, the trial judge incorrectly stated that the appellant did not deny the conduct, incorrectly stated that the appellant confirmed he was drinking, and appeared to engage in improper propensity reasoning based on the appellant's criminal record.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings ordered by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, despite the societal interest in having criminal cases proceed to trial.

The Canadian Foundation for Children Youth and the Law brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal involving a young person.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted the motion, subject to conditions including that the moving party take the record as it exists, file a factum of no more than 20 pages, and make oral argument of no more than 30 minutes.

The moving party was also permitted to reference the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international treaties ratified by Canada.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that the judge erred in rejecting a joint submission and in imposing a disparate sentence compared to the co-accused.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the sentencing judge gave sufficient reasons for departing from the joint submission and that the discrepancy in sentences was justified by differences in prior criminal records and levels of involvement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of an accomplice's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge properly instructed himself on the danger of accepting accomplice evidence and that the confirmatory evidence was overwhelming.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility due to inconsistencies in her evidence, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge was alive to the inconsistencies and the fresh evidence was merely duplicative.

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

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by Justice K. Ross.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the sentencing and held that the sentence was fit.

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

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting the original statement of a witness for the truth of its contents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence demonstrated the appropriate level of reliability and the trial judge did not err in admitting it.

The appellant appealed their conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the conviction appeal and dismissed it.

However, the court found the original sentence to be demonstrably unfit given the appellant's age, antecedents, and lack of a criminal record, and varied the sentence to two years less a day.