Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant, Marc Jean, appealed his convictions and sentence, arguing his guilty plea was uninformed due to a lack of awareness regarding the significant immigration consequences.

The respondent conceded the appeal should be allowed based on fresh evidence supporting the uninformed plea.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding a reasonable possibility that the appellant would have proceeded differently had he understood the consequences.

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

The appellant, a dual status dangerous offender under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board, appealed the Board's decision declining a placement hearing and affirming his detention in a penitentiary over a maximum-secure forensic hospital.

The Board found the penitentiary placement appropriate given the appellant's extreme risk of re-offence, supported by uncontradicted expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, emphasizing that a court-imposed penitentiary sentence takes precedence for dual status offenders and that the Board's paramount responsibility is public safety.

The appeal was dismissed as the Board's findings were reasonable and amply supported by the record.

The appellant, a commercial truck driver, appealed his conviction for criminal negligence causing death and his sentence of five years' imprisonment and a fifteen-year driving prohibition.

The appellant had fallen asleep at the wheel, drifted into oncoming traffic, and caused a fatal head-on collision after falsifying his driving logs to avoid rest obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the elements of the offence and the distinction from dangerous driving causing death.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the appellant's deliberate disregard for safety rules and the need for specific deterrence.

The appellant was convicted of importing and possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after customs officials found 1.2 kilograms of cocaine wrapped in his t-shirt in a truck's fuse box.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge made several errors in assessing his credibility, including taking improper judicial notice, misapprehending evidence, and reversing the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings were reasonably open on the evidence and any alleged errors were peripheral to the core reasoning.

An application to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed for failing the Palmer test.

The appellant was arrested for drug trafficking and subjected to a 'bedpan vigil' search authorized by a general warrant.

He was detained for 43 hours, handcuffed to cell bars, and experienced severe withdrawal symptoms without medical supervision.

The Court of Appeal held that while a general warrant can authorize a bedpan vigil search, the warrant was defective because it purported to authorize indefinite detention, violating the requirement to bring an arrested person before a justice without unreasonable delay.

The court also found the search was conducted in an unreasonable manner, violating the appellant's Charter rights.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the convictions were set aside, and an acquittal was ordered.

The Ontario Review Board granted the respondent an absolute discharge.

The hospital appealed, relying entirely on fresh evidence of the respondent's conduct following his release, which included resuming marijuana use, engaging in threatening behaviour, and facing new criminal charges.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding it overwhelmingly demonstrated that the respondent remained a significant threat to public safety.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing before the Board was ordered.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of importing cocaine and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in refusing to declare a mistrial after jurors observed him in the courthouse lobby.

He also appealed the sentence, arguing it violated the parity principle because two co-accused received conditional sentences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's handling of the mistrial application and concluding the sentence was appropriate given the appellant's major role in the smuggling enterprise compared to his co-accused.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding a s. 8 breach regarding the search warrant, and that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis and held that the circumstantial evidence, including the appellant being the only man living in the apartment where the drugs were found in men's pants, was sufficient to support the conviction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing the trial judge engaged in circular reasoning when rejecting his defence that another person committed the robbery.

The trial judge had relied on the size of the jeans worn by the appellant upon arrest to conclude the alternate suspect could not have worn the jeans seen in the security video, tacitly assuming the jeans in the video were the ones seized from the appellant.

The Court of Appeal found this reasoning circular and noted the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding whether the jeans could have come from the alternate suspect's apartment.

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

The appellant appealed his effective three-year sentence for a lengthy spree of offences committed in an organized and professional manner across southwest Ontario.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by imposing a sentence exceeding the Crown's position of two years less a day without allowing submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that even if the judge should have afforded counsel the chance to make submissions, the sentence imposed was fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Crown's closing address to the jury undermined the principle of jury unanimity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the argument was contrary to established jurisprudence and noting that the only live issue at trial was consent.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of robbery, arguing the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the frailties of eyewitness identification evidence and the alibi defence.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the eyewitness identification of two victims who had a brief, stressful encounter with the assailant and provided generic descriptions lacking distinctive features.

The Court of Appeal found the jury instructions deficient, particularly regarding the failure to connect the standard instruction on eyewitness frailties to the specific concerns of the case and the lack of a Hibbert caution regarding in-dock identification.

The convictions were quashed and acquittals entered.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the jury charge was misleading regarding credibility findings across counts, the consent instructions should have been tailored, and the trial judge erred in findings of fact for sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury instructions were adequate and standard.

The court also granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the appeal, holding the trial judge's findings of fact were well explained and open to him.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for firearms offences, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and made unreasonable findings of guilt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no critical misapprehensions of evidence and that the findings were firmly rooted in circumstantial evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the appellant was apprehended with a fully loaded semi-automatic handgun while bound by a recognizance and a firearms prohibition, making the sentence fit.

The applicant brought motions to re-open two appeals that had been dismissed as abandoned due to non-attendance and non-compliance.

The first motion related to a summary conviction appeal, which the court dismissed because it did not meet the test for leave to appeal.

The second motion related to a conviction appeal for failing to comply with a court order.

The court dismissed the second motion, finding that the explanation offered for the non-attendance and non-compliance was cast into serious doubt by information before the court, and it would not be in the interests of justice to re-open the appeal.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal court decision that set aside a stay of proceedings.

The trial judge had stayed the proceedings due to a 15-month delay, attributing it entirely to a systemic problem with the production of 911 tapes.

The summary conviction appeal judge found the trial judge erred by failing to assess the causes of delay at each stage, noting that part of the delay was attributable to defence counsel's failure to respond to Crown requests for clarification.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the summary conviction appeal judge and denied leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed her conviction for fraud over $5000 against her employer and sought leave to appeal her three-year sentence.

She argued the trial judge erred in ruling her daughter an adverse witness, allowing improper cross-examination, refusing to edit her criminal record, and failing to inquire into jury observations of her driving outside court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no significant prejudice or unfairness despite some procedural shortcomings.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the three-year term was fit given the $50,000 fraud, her prior record for crimes of dishonesty, and the devastating effect on the victim.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual exploitation.

During deliberations, the jury asked a question about whether they should decide each charge strictly on the evidence presented for that charge, or if disbelief of one incident should influence their decision on another.

The trial judge restricted his answer to the question of evidence, instructing the jury not to use evidence from one charge on another, without addressing the issue of credibility.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's answer was not responsive and may have misled the jury into thinking they could not apply a credibility assessment across counts.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault against his separated wife, which occurred in the lobby of her brother's apartment building.

He argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his self-defence claim, misapplied the W.(D.) test regarding credibility, provided insufficient reasons under Sheppard, and reached an unreasonable verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered and rejected the self-defence claim, appropriately assessed credibility, and provided adequate reasons for the conviction.

The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted murder, aggravated assault, and discharging a firearm with intent to wound, as well as his sentence of eight years and six months.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on identification evidence and in reviewing the theory of the defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury was properly instructed and the review of the defence theory was adequate.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the offence was a premeditated, unprovoked act of violence with a firearm causing life-threatening injuries, and the sentence was within the appropriate range.