Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant, S.H., appealed his convictions for historical sexual offences against his two stepdaughters and his seven-year global sentence.

The Court of Appeal identified two key errors by the trial judge: improper use of the appellant's provincial driving record to draw adverse inferences about his character and credibility, and a misapprehension of the appellant's testimony regarding a television program.

Despite the Crown's argument that these errors were harmless and could be cured by the proviso, the Court found that the cumulative effect of the errors was material to the trial judge's credibility assessment of the appellant, especially given the sparse reasons for accepting the complainants' evidence.

The Court concluded that the errors contributed to a miscarriage of justice and ordered a new trial on all counts.

On appeal from convictions for possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession, the appellants challenged the trial judge's findings.

The appellants, common law spouses, were convicted of two counts of possession of oxycodone and Percocet for trafficking purposes, and one count of simple possession of methadone.

The trial judge found both appellants in joint possession and guilty of trafficking.

The appellants appealed on grounds including misuse of prejudicial evidence regarding child endangerment and lack of mens rea.

The Court of Appeal allowed both appeals, finding the trial judge improperly admitted and relied upon evidence of child endangerment to infer trafficking intent, and that there was insufficient evidence of the mens rea required for the respondent's conviction.

The Crown applied for a review of a bail review judge's decision to release the accused pending trial on a charge of second degree murder.

The accused had initially been denied bail, but a bail review judge later granted release based on a material change in circumstances arising from evidence at the preliminary inquiry regarding the accused's intent and level of intoxication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's application, finding no error in the bail review judge's conclusion that the new evidence materially diminished the strength of the Crown's case and that the accused's continued detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice under the tertiary ground.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed on the respondent for historical sexual assault against a teenaged relative.

The Crown argued the sentence was demonstrably unfit and sought a penitentiary term.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge made no error in principle in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors and imposing a conditional sentence with strict house arrest.

The court granted the Crown's request to increase the SOIRA order to 20 years on consent.

The appellant pleaded guilty to kidnapping with a firearm, aggravated assault, and related firearms offences.

He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment with 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reduced the global sentence to 9 years to conform with the Crown's trial submissions, and granted 2:1 credit for pre-sentence custody, noting the lack of rehabilitative programs in remand.

The court dismissed arguments based on the parity principle and the youth of the offender, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for firearms offences.

The Crown appealed a net sentence of 10 months' imprisonment and 18 months' probation imposed on the respondent for possession of child pornography, making child pornography available, and breach of probation.

The Crown argued the sentencing judge minimized the gravity of the offences and imposed a demonstrably unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors, and noting the custodial portion of the sentence had already been served.

The young person appealed convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, as well as a serious violent offence designation.

In an addendum to a previous endorsement, the Court of Appeal noted the Crown's intention not to proceed on a new trial.

The court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, ordered a new trial, and stayed those charges.

Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal the sentence and quashed the serious violent offence designation under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as the remaining conviction for weapons dangerous could not support it.

Appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition order under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant challenged the reasonableness of a detention order and a 50 km radius restriction requiring proximity to the hospital.

The court held that the disposition was supported by the record and reflected the least restrictive disposition agreed to by the parties before the Board.

Although fresh evidence showed the appellant was doing well, that progress was for the next Board hearing and did not render the earlier disposition unreasonable.

The young person appealed his convictions for robbery and weapons dangerous, arguing the trial judge improperly relied on a co-accused's statement, the verdicts were unreasonable, and the reasons were inadequate.

The Crown conceded the trial judge erred in referring to the co-accused's statement but argued the proviso should apply.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence from the other occupants of the van was compelling and the trial judge's reasons adequately explained the basis for conviction despite the error.

The accused was charged with defrauding his employer.

The trial judge stayed the proceedings, finding that the Crown breached the accused's section 7 Charter rights by failing to provide a full and independent forensic audit covering his entire employment period, and noting potential section 11(b) delay issues.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the right to make full answer and defence does not impose a duty on the Crown to investigate possible defences, and that the delay was largely institutional and not unreasonable.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter after arming himself with a handgun and shooting into a vehicle, killing the victim.

The trial judge characterized the offence as close to murder and imposed an effective sentence of 19 years (10 years plus 9 years pre-trial custody credit).

The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing it was beyond the range and violated the parity rule, as the person who hired him received 14 years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was within the range for a near-murder manslaughter and the higher sentence was justified by the appellant's role.

The appellant, a 73-year-old retired labourer, was convicted of uttering a death threat after posting a poorly written, satirical poem about his municipal councillor on neighbourhood mailboxes.

The poem expressed frustration over the councillor's performance and included imagery about digging a hole to hide her body.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to consider the full context of the poem, including its nature as political commentary and the appellant's public posting of it.

The Court concluded that a reasonable person, fully informed of the circumstances, would not view the poem as a serious threat.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The appellant appealed his sentence, seeking to reduce his period of parole ineligibility from 14 to 10 years based on fresh Gladue evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence added little more than context and that the sentencing judge was fully alive to the appellant's difficult personal circumstances, including his aboriginal status.

The court upheld the increased period of parole ineligibility due to the brutality of the victim's slow death and the indignities perpetrated on the victim.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the common sense inference and intoxication.

The appellant admitted to causing the elderly victim's death and sexually assaulting her but claimed an alcohol-induced blackout negated the requisite intent for murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the common sense inference was properly left to the jury and the intoxication instruction did not improperly shift the burden of proof.

The appellant's conviction for first degree murder was previously substituted with a conviction for second degree murder by the Court of Appeal.

The parties agreed the Court should fix the period of parole ineligibility.

The Crown sought 15 years, while the appellant sought 12 years.

The Court considered the aggravating circumstances of the cold-blooded shooting over a drug debt, balanced against the appellant's significant rehabilitation during eight years in custody.

The Court fixed the period of parole ineligibility at 12 years.

The respondent was convicted of attempted murder after using his pick-up truck to run down the victim following a consensual fight.

The trial judge sentenced him to three years in the penitentiary.

The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate given the respondent's concerted effort to kill the victim and the devastating injuries caused.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the three-year sentence wholly inadequate despite mitigating factors such as the lack of planning and the respondent's work record.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was increased to six years.

The appellant appealed the two-year driving prohibition imposed as part of his sentence for dangerous driving.

The appellant had no prior criminal or driving record and operated a self-employed business that required driving.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence on consent showing the prohibition would force the sale of his business.

Finding the two-year prohibition excessive and a particular hardship, the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the driving prohibition to one year.

The appellant appealed a five-year sentence imposed for sexual offences against two young children.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred by classifying the offences as hate crimes and by ignoring the principle of rehabilitation without evidence that the appellant was incapable of it.

While rejecting the proposed sentence of two years less a day as unfit, the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to four years.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, including a twenty-year period of parole ineligibility, for an unprovoked shooting.

He argued the trial judge erred in a Corbett application and failed to instruct the jury on the use of previous consistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error in the Corbett ruling and applying the curative proviso regarding the jury instructions due to the overwhelming case against the appellant.

The twenty-year parole ineligibility period was upheld given the appellant's serious criminal record and the fact he was on parole for manslaughter at the time of the offence.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for a sophisticated fraud committed while on probation for another crime of dishonesty.

The majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding it was not demonstrably unfit given the aggravating circumstances, including the appellant's prior record and lack of remorse.

Laskin J.A. dissented, finding the sentence unfit based on recent sentencing decisions.