Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant was convicted by jury of two counts of trafficking cocaine and one count of assaulting a peace officer with a weapon after police executed a search warrant on his apartment.

He appealed on the grounds that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury on the defence of mistake of fact regarding the assault charge, and in failing to relate the evidence summary to material issues and the defence position.

The court found no merit in either ground, holding that the trial judge's instructions adequately required the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the officer was a peace officer engaged in executing his duty, which effectively encompassed the mistake of fact defence.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

Jeffery Smith, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault and uttering threats, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant public safety threat.

The ORB, and subsequently the Court of Appeal, found that despite a treating psychiatrist's opinion, other expert opinions and the appellant's history of non-compliance, lack of insight, and recent concerning behaviour (stunt driving and dishonesty) indicated a continued significant threat to public safety without ORB oversight.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conditional discharge.

The appellants Collins and Newton were convicted of murder and attempted murder following a five-week trial before a judge and jury.

Collins was found guilty of first degree murder and attempted murder; Newton was acquitted of first degree murder but convicted of second degree murder and attempted murder.

Both appealed their convictions.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to relate the evidence to the legal issues the jury had to decide, instead presenting evidence in a witness-by-witness format.

This error deprived the appellants of a fair trial.

The court rejected Newton's argument that his verdicts were unreasonable.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The respondent pleaded guilty to making child pornography for the purpose of publication.

The trial judge found that the respondent's rights under ss. 7 and 9 of the Charter were breached due to mistreatment in custody and a delayed bail hearing.

Invoking s. 24(1) of the Charter, the trial judge imposed a 21-month conditional sentence, overriding the one-year mandatory minimum sentence and the statutory prohibition on conditional sentences for this offence.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in finding the Charter breaches and in using s. 24(1) to impose a sentence outside statutory limits.

A 21-month prison sentence was substituted but stayed as the respondent had already served the conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed her convictions for aggravated assault, uttering a death threat, possession of a weapon, and breach of probation, and sought to re-open her sentence appeal.

She sought to introduce fresh evidence consisting of Prisoner Detain Sheets to challenge the trial judge's credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the fresh evidence could not reasonably be expected to have affected the result and that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error.

The sentence appeal was allowed to increase the pre-sentence custody credit to 1.5:1.

The appellant, a 19-year-old, was convicted of importing nearly 2 kg of cocaine and sentenced to 4.5 years' imprisonment.

She appealed her conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on her out-of-court statements, the W.(D.) framework, and her criminal record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors in the jury charge.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence fell within the established range for first-time couriers importing large amounts of cocaine and appropriately accounted for her youth.

The appellant was convicted of possession of heroin and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

He appealed his convictions, challenging the validity of search warrants executed at two properties.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant lacked standing to challenge the search of a garage where he only had a key and permission to store tools, as he had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Court also upheld the validity of the search warrant for his residence, finding that detailed information from a confidential informant, corroborated by police surveillance of hand-to-hand transactions, provided reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed her conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and her six-month custodial sentence.

The appellant argued that the police lacked reasonable grounds for the traffic stop and search, and that the evidence should be excluded under s 24(2) of the Charter due to a s 10(b) breach.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the stop was justified under the Highway Traffic Act and that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the smell of marijuana and other observations.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no error in principle and noting the significant quantity of marijuana and the appellant's perjured testimony.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery for his role in a home invasion and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

He appealed his sentence and introduced fresh evidence demonstrating significant rehabilitation during the five years he spent on bail pending appeal, including maintaining employment, marrying, and volunteering.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence and held that returning the appellant to custody would sacrifice his rehabilitation for general deterrence.

The custodial portion of the sentence was reduced to time served.

A young person appealed convictions for sexual offences involving another young person, principally arguing that the trial judge should have declared a mistrial after receiving a post-verdict letter reporting an additional disclosure by the complainant.

The Court of Appeal held that mistrials are an exceptional remedy and that the trial judge properly applied the Palmer fresh-evidence framework in concluding the reported statement would not reasonably have affected the result.

The court also rejected challenges to the trial judge's treatment of credibility, finding the reasons thoughtful, even-handed, and sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions, raising issues regarding the disclosure of police protocols for confidential informants, the validity of a search warrant, and the finding of possession.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the protocols were not relevant when requested, the search warrant was properly granted based on compelling information, and there was ample evidence to support the finding of possession.

The appellant pleaded guilty to importing 1.37 kg of heroin and was sentenced to 10.5 years' imprisonment.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient reasons for rejecting his claim of duress, erred in finding he was a principal rather than a courier, and imposed an unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge's credibility findings were supported by evidence, his characterization of the appellant's role was appropriate, and the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the quantity of heroin and the appellant's role.

The appellant appealed his sentence, seeking enhanced credit for pre-trial custody.

The sentencing judge had granted 1.5:1 credit for only some of the time served, noting poor facility conditions and loss of parole eligibility.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Summers, the Court of Appeal held that enhanced credit is the norm and varied the sentence to allow 1.5:1 credit for all time spent in pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed his conviction, seeking to introduce fresh evidence from a toxicologist.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding that although it was available at trial, the failure to lead it was an oversight by defence counsel rather than a tactical decision.

The court concluded that the evidence met the fourth Palmer criterion, as it was independent, objective evidence capable of raising sufficient concern about the complainant's credibility to reasonably affect the verdict.

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

The appellants were convicted of second degree murder following a fatal beating.

On appeal, they argued that the trial judge made errors in his charge to the jury.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding a statement allegedly made by one appellant, which was crucial to determining his intent.

For the other appellant, the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on how to apply the concept of reasonable doubt to his exculpatory statements and to eyewitness identification evidence that excluded him as the primary attacker.

The appeals were allowed, the convictions quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred by failing to direct that necessary inquiries regarding the appellant's mother becoming an 'approved person' be finalized forthwith, as required by Winko.

The Board also misapprehended evidence by stating the appellant had no track record in the community, when in fact he had successfully completed several unescorted passes.

The Court substituted an order for conditional release and remitted the matter to the Board to determine appropriate conditions.

The appellant appealed his conviction for unlawfully entering Canada after being the subject of a removal order.

At trial, the judge allowed the Crown to rely on issue estoppel to prevent the appellant from attempting to prove he was a Canadian citizen.

Applying the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Mahalingam, the Court of Appeal held that the Crown cannot rely on issue estoppel against an accused.

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

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder following his third trial for the death of the victim.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred in admitting a surreptitiously recorded conversation between himself and the victim, claiming it was conscriptive evidence that should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

He also challenged the trial judge's jury instructions regarding manslaughter, false alibi evidence, and the likely time of death.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the recorded conversation was non-conscriptive and properly admitted, and that the jury instructions did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

A young person appealed both a finding of guilt for sexual interference and the custodial disposition imposed after a cadet camping trip incident.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by treating an evidentiary burden as having shifted to the accused and by linking the accused's failure to meet that burden to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, contrary to the W.(D.) framework.

The court also accepted that it was an error to permit use of the accused's statement to police without first holding a voir dire on voluntariness.

A new trial was ordered, rendering the disposition appeal moot.

The Crown appealed a decision regarding charges against the respondent under the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Following further submissions, the Court of Appeal concluded that errors of law relating to the due diligence defence applied equally to both charges.

Pursuant to s. 125 of the Provincial Offences Act, the Court ordered that the OWRA charge be retried together with the EPA charge.