Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant appealed his conviction on multiple counts of fraud, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The appellant claimed his lawyer failed to properly prepare him for trial, made improper admissions, failed to present relevant evidence, and colluded with the Crown.

The Court of Appeal rejected all allegations, finding that defence counsel's performance met the standard of reasonably competent counsel.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal his fine and compensation orders based on impecuniosity, but the Court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's discretion.

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

The applicant sought an order under section 684 of the Criminal Code appointing counsel to represent him on his appeal of a second-degree murder conviction and life sentence with 12-year parole ineligibility.

The applicant was denied legal aid based on failing to meet financial eligibility criteria.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had sufficient means to fund his appeal, having savings of approximately $12,000 and monthly income of $900, and that it was not in the interests of justice to appoint counsel given the availability of duty counsel assistance through the Ontario Inmate Appeal Duty Counsel Program.

The appellant was detained by police investigating trespass and liquor offences.

An altercation ensued, leading to his arrest and the discovery of a handgun in his backpack.

At trial, the appellant argued his detention was arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter, but the trial judge dismissed the application, finding the police had reasonable suspicion.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the s. 9 ruling.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, concluding that the totality of the circumstances supported a reasonable suspicion that the appellant was engaged in trespass or liquor-related offences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and criminal harassment, appealed the Ontario Review Board's refusal to grant him an absolute discharge.

The Board had ordered a continuation of his conditional discharge based on psychiatric evidence that he would likely stop taking his anti-psychotic medication and resume substance abuse if absolutely discharged, thereby increasing the risk of violent relapse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the significant threat test and that its conclusion was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The Republic of France sought the appellant's extradition for his alleged role in a 1980 terrorist bombing in Paris.

The extradition judge committed the appellant for surrender based primarily on a French handwriting analysis linking him to the bombing, finding the report was not manifestly unreliable despite methodological criticisms.

The Minister of Justice subsequently ordered the appellant's surrender, rejecting arguments that France had not yet decided to put him on trial and that the case relied on intelligence reports potentially derived from torture.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal from the committal order and his application for judicial review of the surrender order, upholding the extradition judge's application of the test for committal and finding the Minister's surrender decision reasonable.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) eight years prior, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at a maximum security facility.

He argued the Board erred by refusing to order his transfer to another psychiatric facility for an independent assessment, citing a change in his psychiatric diagnosis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably exercised its discretion in concluding that a transfer was not necessary for an appropriate disposition and that treatment and assessment could continue at his current facility.

The appellant appealed an 18-month sentence for assaulting a police officer by spitting in the officer's face.

The Crown conceded that the appellant should have received credit for 134 days of pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal found the original sentence manifestly excessive, noting that while denunciation is required, a 12-month sentence adequately meets the needs of deterrence and denunciation.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to 365 days, less 134 days of pre-trial custody credit, resulting in a net sentence of 231 days.

The appellant appealed her convictions for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and heroin, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing her motion to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The contraband was found during a warrantless search of her knapsack after police responded to a 911 call about a hostage situation.

The Court of Appeal found that the search violated the appellant's s. 8 Charter rights, as it was not justified by exigent circumstances or the Waterfield doctrine.

However, applying the Grant framework, the Court concluded the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) because the police acted in good faith in a chaotic situation and the law regarding police powers in such circumstances was uncertain.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent pled guilty to aggravated assault and was convicted of assault with a weapon after striking one victim with a beer bottle and another with a sword at a house party.

The trial judge imposed a six-month conditional sentence.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that while a conditional sentence was open to the trial judge, the duration and terms were wholly inadequate to address denunciation and general deterrence.

The appeal was allowed and the conditional sentence was increased to two years less seven days, with house arrest for the first seven months.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for assault charges, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention in a maximum security facility.

The Court of Appeal found that while the Board reasonably concluded the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety, it erred in principle by failing to adequately consider his cultural and linguistic isolation and whether his current placement was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding the police officer's evidence reliable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that there was no basis to find the officer's evidence unreliable.

The appellant appealed his convictions for kidnapping, robbery, extortion, and unlawful confinement, as well as his six-year sentence.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal showing that one of the complainants had a criminal record and used aliases, contrary to the complainant's testimony at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the fresh evidence failed the Palmer test because it could have been discovered with due diligence and would not have reasonably affected the verdict given the strong corroborating identification and cell phone evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the overall sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of a prior sexual assault conviction as similar fact evidence.

The Court of Appeal applied the framework from R. v. Handy and R. v. Blake, finding that the similarities between the prior incident and the current allegations were merely generic and lacked distinctive unifying features.

The court concluded the probative value of the evidence failed to outweigh its prejudicial effect.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his sentence for a vast conspiracy to traffic cocaine and launder money, committed while on bail pending appeal for another drug trafficking offence.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was at the high end of the range but not manifestly excessive.

The trial judge's findings of fact were consistent with the jury's verdict, and she did not err in refusing enhanced pre-sentence credit beyond 2:1.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing against the length of the probationary period.

The trial judge had imposed a lesser custodial term than the three years suggested in a joint submission, but included a three-year probationary period.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the custodial term and held that the probationary period, while high, was not unreasonable given the facts of the offence.

The sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellants were convicted of possessing 1,200 kilograms of contraband tobacco and sentenced to the minimum fine under s. 240 of the Excise Act.

They appealed, arguing that the minimum fine provisions constitute cruel and unusual punishment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the minimum fine is not grossly disproportionate given the gravity of the offence and the direct connection between the quantity of illegal substance possessed and the size of the fine.

The court did, however, reduce the fine to $132,000 to correct a calculation error by the trial judge.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for drug offences.

The Crown conceded that the guilty plea, entered in error at the conclusion of a Charter voir dire, should be struck.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in minimizing the seriousness of a section 8 Charter breach, which occurred when the appellant was searched without reasonable and probable grounds before entering a police cruiser after being detained in freezing weather.

The Court concluded that the seriousness of the breach favoured exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and acquittals were entered.

The appellant appealed its conviction relating to the operation of two crane games, arguing they were games of skill rather than mixed chance and skill under s. 206(1)(f) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the games involved an overwhelming degree of chance and only a minimal element of skill for the ordinary player.

The court noted that virtually all elements of the game were beyond the player's control, making it a game of mixed chance and skill.

The appellant appealed his conviction on the basis that his roadside statement, made before he was advised of his right to counsel, was improperly admitted.

The Court of Appeal, applying its previous decision in R. v. Huff, held that the statement must be excluded from the evidence available for the Carter defence and credibility assessment.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a murder conviction and sentence, advancing grounds including unreasonable verdict, the availability of second degree murder, alleged errors in the trial judge's answers to jury questions, the explanation of the consequences of a not criminally responsible verdict, and sentence.

The court held there was evidence on which the jury could reject the defence of not criminally responsible and find the requisite intent for murder.

It further held that the trial judge properly instructed the jury and appropriately answered the jury's questions, and that the explanation of the consequences of a not criminally responsible verdict accorded with the authorities.

The request for a constitutional exemption from the minimum life sentence without parole eligibility for ten years was rejected.

The appeal from conviction and sentence was dismissed.