Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted William Craig Robson’s motion for release pending appeal and a partial stay of his driving prohibition after his conviction for dangerous driving causing death.

The court found that the grounds of appeal were not frivolous and raised significant legal issues, including the definition of “public” under s. 320.13(3) of the Criminal Code and causation in the context of dangerous off-road activities.

The court concluded that Robson did not pose a risk to public safety and that his continued detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed J.C.'s appeal from a dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence, finding a miscarriage of justice due to the limited, non-adversarial role assigned to amicus curiae at the original hearing.

The Court held that, in light of subsequent Supreme Court guidance in R. v. Kahsai, the trial judge erred in principle by not appointing amicus with a broader, adversarial mandate to ensure fairness, given the appellant's self-represented and self-defeating position.

The Court ordered a new hearing.

The appellant was convicted of three counts of trafficking cocaine, one count of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of marijuana.

He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment followed by three years' probation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction on three grounds: that the trial judge reversed the onus by drawing an adverse inference from his failure to call his employer as a witness; that the trial judge improperly relied on cross-examination on an affidavit sworn as part of a Rowbotham application; and that the trial judge made adverse factual findings insufficiently grounded in the evidence.

The appellant also appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in not imposing a conditional sentence and failed to consider the over-representation of African-Canadians in the prison system.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that a warrantless police search of his basement following a 911 call violated his rights under s. 8 of the Charter.

Police had forcibly entered the home after a 25-minute delay and conducted a cursory search of the premises for safety, discovering cocaine in plain view.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the principle that police responding to a 911 call are entitled to satisfy themselves that all occupants are safe, and that privacy does not trump household safety.

The appellant appealed the six-year global sentence imposed for historical sexual offences against multiple child victims.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly considered the appellant's prior sentences and lack of insight.

The court upheld the global sentence as fit for a sexual predator abusing young victims, but adjusted the allocation for specific offences to respect statutory maximums and credited 42 days for pre-trial custody.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant sought leave to appeal sentence, challenging the sentencing judge's approach to enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court granted leave but dismissed the sentence appeal.

It held that the sentencing judge did not err by considering that the appellant would not have been eligible for bail because of his criminal record, and properly took into account delay attributable to both the Crown and the defence.

The exercise of discretion in awarding significant enhanced credit warranted no appellate intervention.

The appellant appealed a firearm conviction and sentence arising from multiple firearm-related offences.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not establish knowledge that the firearm had been obtained by the commission of an offence, and therefore the conviction under s. 96(2) could not stand.

On sentence, the respondent conceded reassessment was required in light of appellate authority concerning firearm sentencing.

The court quashed the s. 96(2) conviction and reduced the firearm sentences, while imposing an eight-month consecutive sentence on the s. 117.01(3) count.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime, challenging the search warrant for his home.

He argued the trial judge erred in restricting cross-examination of the affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO) and that the ITO lacked sufficient information to justify the warrant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly restricted cross-examination to avoid a fishing expedition and that the corroborated information from a confidential informant, combined with surveillance evidence, provided reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The appellant appealed a substantial penitentiary sentence, arguing for a reformatory term combined with lengthy probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the sentencing judge given the gravity of the offences, the appellant's serious criminal record, and parole violations.

A fresh evidence application was also dismissed as insufficient to impact the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences and his 50-month sentence.

He argued the police used the Highway Traffic Act as a pretext to stop and search his vehicle, violating his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the stop had a valid dual purpose and that the smell of marijuana provided reasonable grounds for arrest.

The court also upheld the admission of evidence under s. 24(2) despite a minor s. 10(b) breach.

On the sentence appeal, the court found the appellant was not entitled to enhanced pre-sentence custody credit because he was on bail and bound by a weapons prohibition at the time of his arrest.

The applicant, having been convicted of first degree murder at his second trial, applied under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for the appointment of counsel for his appeal.

He argued that his appeal had merit based on an unreasonable verdict, citing his acquittal at his first trial, the subsequent discrediting of a gang expert, and alleged errors regarding prior testimony and Vetrovec cautions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the proposed grounds of appeal were not arguable on the materials filed, as the first verdict was irrelevant and the expert's subsequent treatment did not render the current verdict unreasonable.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault and uttering threats and received a suspended sentence.

Almost three years later, he applied for an extension of time to appeal, which was dismissed by the summary conviction appeal court.

The accused then filed a notice of application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Crown brought an application to have the leave application determined by a single judge in advance of the appeal hearing.

The Court of Appeal held that a single judge has jurisdiction under s. 839(1) of the Criminal Code to deny an application for leave to appeal.

The Crown's application was granted and the accused's application for leave to appeal was refused for lacking merit and failing to raise a significant question of law.

The appellant appealed his criminal conviction, arguing the trial judge improperly relied on demeanour, reversed the burden of proof, and misapprehended evidence regarding a dropped wallet and lack of injuries.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not improperly rely on demeanour or reverse the burden of proof, and that any misapprehension of evidence was not material.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault with a weapon after attacking his adoptive parents.

Following psychiatric assessments, the trial judge found the appellant not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder, likely schizophrenia.

The appellant appealed the NCR verdict, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel's strategy was professional and caused no prejudice, and that the NCR verdict was well-supported by the evidence of the appellant's mental decline, bizarre behaviour, and expert testimony.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for several offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in the Secure Forensic Service at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.

The appellant argued he should receive an absolute discharge and that the Board erred in applying the test for the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's assessment of the evidence reasonable and concluding that the transfer to the Secure Forensic Service was actually less restrictive due to a higher staff-to-patient ratio allowing for greater freedom.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's eight-page reasons were inadequate to permit meaningful review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while it would have been preferable for the trial judge to more fully address the alleged frailties in the complainant's evidence, the pathway to the conclusion was apparent.

The trial judge had specifically addressed the fact that the complainant lied to the police, finding she was terrified.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine.

He argued that the jury verdicts were inconsistent, the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on aiding and abetting, and the trial judge erred in finding he was not entrapped.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the jury instructions or the entrapment ruling.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 14-month sentence was fit and within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to traffic and import cocaine, arguing the trial judge failed to provide a limiting instruction on bad character evidence and gave an insufficient Vetrovec warning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the defence made a tactical decision to put bad character in issue and specifically requested that no limiting instruction be given.

The court also found the Vetrovec warning was sufficient to alert the jury to the dangers of relying on the unsavoury Crown witnesses.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and drug offences, as well as his three-year custodial sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred by refusing to sever the charges, admitting improper confidential informer hearsay evidence, and failing to credit banked pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the framework for severance, the evidence in question was not hearsay, and there was no proven link between the banked pre-trial custody and the current charges.

The appellant appealed a jury conviction for sexual assault and argued, among other grounds, that the trial judge failed to properly investigate allegations that jurors had communicated with the officer-in-charge during trial.

The Court of Appeal held that both actual fairness and the appearance of fairness required a fuller inquiry into the allegation.

Because the witness was not permitted to explain an inconsistency and the officer should at least have been called to testify, the inquiry was incomplete and inconclusive.

The resulting appearance of unfairness required that the conviction be set aside and a new trial ordered.