Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant, who was self-represented at trial, appealed his convictions for sexual assault and related offences.

He argued that the trial judge failed to provide him with sufficient assistance, rendering the trial unfair.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge failed to explain the trial process, provided inadequate instructions on cross-examination, and failed to assist the appellant in deciding whether to testify or call witnesses.

The cumulative effect of these failures resulted in an unfair trial and a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant, R.K., appealed his conviction for sexual interference and an eight-year sentence.

The appeal raised nine grounds, including alleged errors in refusing production of the complainant's diary, improper use of the diary to enhance credibility, misapprehension of evidence, improper cross-examination on bad acts, overvaluing demeanour, improper corroboration by peripheral details, improper reliance on lack of motive to fabricate, and uneven scrutiny of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding both the conviction and the sentence, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and sentencing decision to be sound.

The applicants, convicted of various firearms offences, sought bail pending appeal.

The Crown opposed the applications based on the public interest criterion.

The motion judge found no public safety concerns, noting neither applicant had a criminal record and both had complied with previous bail conditions.

The judge also determined that the grounds of appeal were arguable and that the applicants might serve their sentences before the appeals could be heard.

The applications for bail pending appeal were granted.

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and marihuana, conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances, and participating in a criminal organization.

The principal issue on appeal concerned the admissibility of communications found on a Blackberry seized from a co-accused.

The trial judge had ruled the appellant lacked standing to challenge the search.

Following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Marakah, the Crown conceded the appellant had standing and that the seizure violated his Charter section 8 rights.

The appellate court applied the Marakah framework and determined the evidence must be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, as the serious breach of privacy rights and substantial impact on the appellant's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant pleaded guilty to break and enter and breach of probation, receiving an eight-month sentence based on a joint submission.

Four months later, an amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into force retrospectively, rendering him inadmissible to Canada for serious criminality with no right of appeal due to the sentence length.

The appellant sought to reduce his sentence to five and a half months to preserve his right of appeal against deportation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the reduced sentence remained proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's circumstances.

The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to export ecstasy into the United States and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.

He appealed both the conviction and sentence.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility and corroboration of a co-conspirator who testified for the Crown after receiving a reduced sentence in the U.S. The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, including recorded phone calls that demonstrated the appellant's involvement.

The court also upheld the six-year sentence, noting the large quantity of drugs and the appellant's use of a courier to take the cross-border risk.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault following a physical altercation at a restaurant where he placed the victim in a headlock, causing the victim to lose consciousness and hit his head.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge's jury instructions on consent were inadequate and that the proceedings should have been stayed due to appellate delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal held that while s. 11(b) does not apply to appellate delay, the trial judge failed to adequately relate the evidence to the law of consent, potentially leading the jury to believe the victim had to consent to every specific act for the defence to apply.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences and conspiracy to commit unlawful confinement, as well as his ten-year sentence.

He argued there was insufficient evidence he knew about a firearm in the driver's side door pocket of the car he was driving.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the totality of the evidence, including the appellant's possession of other weapons and the proximity of the firearm, proved his knowledge.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the trial judge properly considered the appellant's prior record for similar violent offences and his poor prospects for rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of child pornography, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting images found on his computer.

A computer repair technician discovered the images and called police, who viewed them without a warrant before seizing the computer.

The trial judge found breaches of section 8 of the Charter but admitted the evidence under section 24(2), noting the reduced expectation of privacy at a repair shop and the high reliability of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's section 24(2) analysis.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder and the sentence increasing his period of parole ineligibility.

On the conviction appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on intoxication and the required intention for murder.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the relevance of intoxication to mens rea and adequately summarized the defence's position regarding an alcohol-induced blackout.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors.

Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of firearm and drug offences after police found him in the backyard of a townhouse while responding to a 911 call.

The police placed him under investigative detention for trespassing and, after observing suspicious movements indicating he might be armed, conducted a safety search that revealed a loaded handgun and drugs.

On appeal, the appellant argued the safety search was unlawful and the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the safety search was justified by a reasonable belief that officer safety was at stake, and upholding the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence despite minor s. 10 Charter breaches.

The appellant appealed his conviction for firearm possession and his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury's verdict was reasonable based on circumstantial and DNA evidence linking the appellant to a gun thrown from a room.

The sentence appeal was allowed to grant enhanced credit for pre-trial custody at a ratio of 1.5 to 1, applying the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Summers, which reduced the sentence by two months.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety.

The Court also found the Board's decision to detain the appellant on a secure unit rather than a general unit or via a hybrid order was reasonable given concerns about her risk of going AWOL and assaultive behaviour.

The respondent, convicted of first-degree murder, sought a declaration that he could apply for a ministerial review of his conviction under s. 696.1 of the Criminal Code without first seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The application judge granted the declaration, finding that the Minister of Justice is not precluded from determining that an applicant has exhausted their rights of appeal despite not applying for leave to the SCC.

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed, and the respondent cross-appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, agreeing with the application judge's analysis.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on a charge of murder, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with community living privileges.

He sought a conditional discharge and travel privileges to India.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's ongoing threat to public safety, the risk of relapse, and concerns regarding medication compliance while travelling.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the summary conviction appeal court.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, holding that the appellant's arguments focused on factual findings and alleged misapprehensions of evidence.

The court concluded that the appellant failed to raise a question of law of importance beyond the individual case.

The appellant appealed her convictions for fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document, as well as her sentence of a four-month conditional sentence and two years' probation.

She argued the trial judge erred in his treatment of eyewitness identification and by comparing handwriting without expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably relied on the totality of the evidence, including the appellant's possession of false identification.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge's decision to impose a sentence resulting in a criminal record.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's handling of a difficult situation would have led the jury to conclude his lawyer no longer believed in him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge handled the situation appropriately with a firm and fair instruction to the jury.

The court rejected the appellant's submission as speculative and contrary to the presumption that jurors follow a trial judge's directions.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's comments on the performance of witnesses demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the summary conviction appeal judge that while the comments were ill-advised and could cause concern if taken out of context, they did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant appealed an endorsement of a Superior Court judge that set aside a previous order.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that the order appealed from was interlocutory and therefore not properly before the court.

The Court also noted that the motion judge reached the correct result, as the initial order had been made without proper service.