Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

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 sentence for impaired driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death.

The sentencing judge imposed a 10-year driving prohibition commencing on the date of sentencing rather than at the end of the period of imprisonment, which constituted an error under R. v. Lacasse.

The Court of Appeal corrected this error by applying the Lacasse formula: subtracting the 5-year term of imprisonment from the 10-year prohibition, leaving a 5-year prohibition to commence upon release.

However, the court exercised discretion to reduce the credit for the presentence driving prohibition period due to the appellant's breach of that condition, resulting in a final 3-year driving prohibition following release.

The victim surcharge was also set aside on consent.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed following the respondent's guilty plea to fraud exceeding $41 million.

The respondent had fraudulently redirected GST refunds from the Canada Revenue Agency by submitting false RC366 Direct Deposit Request Forms.

The sentencing judge struck down the mandatory two-year minimum sentence under section 380(1.1) of the Criminal Code as unconstitutional and imposed 18 months imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal on the constitutional question (with a dissent), found the sentence manifestly inadequate, and imposed a three-year sentence.

However, the court declined to re-incarcerate the respondent as he had already served the original sentence and demonstrated rehabilitation.

Crown appeal of a nine-year sentence imposed on an accused who pleaded guilty to eight counts of sexual assault, eight counts of making child pornography, and one count of possession of child pornography.

The accused, employed as an early childhood educator at a daycare centre, touched and photographed the genitals of sleeping toddlers and possessed a massive collection of graphic child pornography.

The trial judge imposed six years for sexual assault, one year consecutive for making child pornography, and two years consecutive for possession of child pornography.

The Crown sought 15 years, arguing the sentence failed to satisfy the totality principle and violated section 718.3(7) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 718.3(7) is subject to the totality principle and that the nine-year sentence was fit and consistent with sentencing principles for such offences.

The appellant appealed his conviction on counts of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, arguing the verdicts were inconsistent with his acquittal on sexual assault.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal his sentence of four years on the invitation to sexual touching count.

The Court of Appeal held that the jury verdicts were not inconsistent because the trial judge's instructions created a reasonable basis for the jury to understand that sexual assault required force applied by the appellant to the complainant, whereas sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching required only touching or an invitation to touch.

The court dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for kidnapping and robbery, arguing that the trial judge's questions to a defence witness created an apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly followed the established protocol by waiting until the conclusion of the witness's testimony to ask clarifying questions on a narrow issue and allowing further re-examination.

The Crown appealed a 90-day intermittent sentence imposed on the respondent for using an imitation firearm during a bank robbery, arguing it fell below the mandatory minimum of one year under s. 85(3) of the Criminal Code.

The respondent conceded the sentence was illegal.

The Court of Appeal imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months.

However, considering the respondent's youth, rehabilitation, restitution, and the time already served, the Court permanently stayed the execution of the sentence, declining to re-incarcerate him.

The appellants, who were convicted of first degree murder and sentenced as adults, brought an application for directions to have their sentence appeal heard prior to and separate from their conviction appeal.

They argued that the delay in hearing the conviction appeal would negatively impact their ability to participate in an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision program if their sentence appeal was successful.

The Court of Appeal granted the application, finding that the exceptional circumstances and potential prejudice to the appellants constituted compelling reasons to bifurcate the appeals.

The appellant appealed a conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the complainant and the appellant.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the trial judge's credibility assessments are entitled to deference and the reasons provided ample explanation for accepting the complainant's evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, except for a stay of the conviction on count 1 under the Kienapple principle.

The trial judge found the accused guilty of gun-related offences and adjourned for sentencing.

Months later, the trial judge stated he had reconsidered the findings of guilt, reopened the matter, and entered acquittals without hearing submissions from the Crown.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal held that while a trial judge sitting alone has jurisdiction to vacate a conviction prior to sentencing in exceptional circumstances, the judge erred in law by entering an acquittal without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The appropriate remedy was to declare a mistrial.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed the dismissal of its application for certiorari and mandamus after a preliminary inquiry judge discharged the respondents on first degree murder and committed them for second degree murder.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that there was no evidence of planning and deliberation.

However, the Court found the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded his jurisdiction by determining whether the victim was unlawfully confined to the degree required for constructive first degree murder under s. 231(5)(e), rather than leaving that question to the jury.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the preliminary inquiry judge.

The appellant was convicted of assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and forcible confinement in a domestic setting.

The complainant, his fiancée, deliberately failed to attend court for the trial.

The trial judge admitted her videotaped K.G.B. statement as the main evidence against the appellant.

On appeal, the appellant argued he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine her.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the statement met the necessity and reliability requirements for admitting hearsay evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, arguing the verdict was unreasonable due to insufficient evidence linking him to the attempted carjacking and establishing the weapon was a real firearm.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the appellant was a party to the robbery, but found insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was real.

The appeal was allowed in part, substituting a conviction for robbery and reducing the sentence to 12 months' imprisonment.

The appellants were convicted of first-degree murder for an execution-style shooting related to a drug debt.

On appeal, they argued that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding unsavoury witnesses (Vetrovec warning) and the defence of abandonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's continuum approach to the Vetrovec warnings, his instructions on confirmatory evidence, or his charge on abandonment.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for criminal negligence causing bodily harm arising from a street racing incident.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting the out-of-court statements of a recanting witness, allowing the jury to view a DVD of the statement during deliberations, and instructing the jury on criminal negligence.

He also appealed the rejection of a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the hearsay statements were necessary and reliable, the jury instructions were adequate, and a significant custodial sentence was required to deter street racing.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings ordered under s. 11(b) of the Charter in a sexual assault case that took 35.5 months to reach trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the delay was extraordinary for a simple case and was primarily caused by the Crown's desire to join the prosecution with a second charge and institutional delays.

The court upheld the trial judge's finding of prejudice and concluded the delay was unreasonable and unacceptable.

The appellant appealed his conviction for criminal harassment, which arose from his repeated calls, texts, and visits to the complainant's workplace after she assisted him with his cell phone.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in finding the elements of the offence proven and in assessing the complainant's credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence supported the trial judge's factual findings and that his credibility assessment was entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed his convictions for multiple sexual assaults and his designation as a dangerous offender.

He argued that a saliva sample used for DNA comparison was obtained in violation of his Charter rights under s. 8 and s. 10(b).

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant provided a valid, informed waiver that severed any connection between the prior s. 10(b) breach and the taking of the sample.

The court also found no error in the jury instructions regarding expert DNA evidence or in the trial judge's dangerous offender designation, which properly assessed the appellant's treatability and risk to the community.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for fraud over $5,000.

He argued the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process because they were allegedly used solely to collect a civil debt owed to the complainants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no improper purpose behind the prosecution despite some ill-advised emails from Crown counsel.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 18-month imprisonment and $22,500 restitution order were within the appropriate range and revealed no error in principle.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board erred in its treatment of an impugned letter contained in his hospital records.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly admitted the letter as part of the hospital records without using it for the truth of its contents, and that the Board's decision was reasonable on the totality of the evidence.