Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for past offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board that ordered his detention at a forensic mental health facility with community privileges, rather than granting his request for a conditional discharge.

The Board denied the conditional discharge due to public safety concerns, emphasizing the need for swift intervention in case of mental state decompensation, despite the appellant's recent stability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court deferred to the Board's expert opinion, supported by the appellant's psychiatrist, that a detention order was necessary to ensure public protection by allowing intervention before the criteria for involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act were met, which conditional discharge mechanisms might not adequately provide.

The appellant, Clifton Vassel, appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable regarding planning and deliberation, and that the jury instructions on this element were flawed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude planning and deliberation, and that the trial judge's instructions adequately outlined the relevant evidence, even if not exhaustive.

The appellant, a former high school teacher, appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The conviction stemmed from an incident with a former student.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's credibility analysis, including the permissible use of evidence regarding the appellant's breach of professional obligations.

The court also granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the sentence appeal, affirming the 18-month custodial sentence and rejecting arguments that the trial judge erred in using good character as an aggravating factor or that the sentence was unfit.

The appellant, Kensky Dautruche, appealed two convictions for possession of cocaine and crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The appeal challenged the validity of a vehicle search incident to arrest for flight from police under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the trial judge's inference regarding the appellant's possession of cocaine found outside the vehicle.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the search was a valid search incident to arrest, as the officer had a reasonable subjective belief that the search might uncover evidence explaining the flight.

The court also determined that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

Furthermore, the Court affirmed the trial judge's inference of possession of the second bag of cocaine, finding it to be the only rational inference from the circumstantial evidence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal sentence was denied.

The appellant appealed his sentence for possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of property obtained by crime, and conspiracy.

The trial judge had initially imposed a 24-month less one day global term, then reconsidered the availability of a conditional sentence after R. v. Sharma.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the trial judge's analysis, which concluded that a conditional sentence was not fit given the totality of circumstances and sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is an appeal from a conviction where the Crown filed an affidavit attesting to the appellant's death.

The court dismissed the appeal as abated due to the appellant's demise.

The appellant appealed from convictions for possession for the purpose of trafficking in crystal methamphetamine and cocaine, possession of marihuana, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Drugs and cash were found in the appellant's apartment pursuant to a search warrant obtained in relation to alleged criminal activity by the appellant's former roommate.

The appellant claimed he did not know the drugs were in his apartment and that the cash came from legitimate sources.

The Court of Appeal rejected three grounds of appeal: that the trial judge erred in finding sufficient basis for the search warrant, that she erred in assessing the appellant's credibility, and that her reasons for conviction were insufficient.

The appeal was allowed only to the extent of vacating the conviction for possession of marihuana, as the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to hear that count as a summary conviction offence.

Appeals from conviction and sentence in a complex fraud case involving a scheme to divert millions of dollars from the Canadian Revenue Agency.

The appellants were convicted of fraud over $5,000 following a four-month jury trial.

The appellants challenged their convictions on multiple grounds including delay, issue estoppel, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions.

The Crown appealed the quantum of the fine in lieu of forfeiture imposed on one appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals and the sentence appeals, but granted leave to appeal on the sentencing issues.

The appellant was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking and assault following his arrest by Toronto Parking Authority security guards in a parking lot.

For the first time on appeal, the appellant raised Charter violations by police, claiming the police illegally continued an unreasonable citizen's arrest and conducted an unlawful search.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant could not raise new Charter issues for the first time on appeal because he had expressly conceded at trial that police had not violated his Charter rights.

The court found the appellant failed to meet the preconditions for raising new issues on appeal, including an incomplete evidentiary record and uncertainty regarding whether the failure to raise the issue was tactical.

The court also upheld the trial judge's credibility findings regarding the assault charge.

The appellant appealed her conviction and 18-month sentence for aggravated assault.

She argued the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons by omitting mention of specific evidence and erred in refusing to reopen the trial based on fresh evidence concerning the complainant's victim impact statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the omitted evidence was not prominent and the trial judge properly exercised her discretion in refusing to reopen the trial.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 18-month sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was not unreasonable given the appellant's admitted non-compliance with previous dispositions, lack of insight into his condition and medical needs, and recent events.

The appellant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while disqualified after being stopped driving an e-bike with inoperable pedals.

The trial judge and summary conviction appeal judge found the device was a motor vehicle under the Criminal Code because it could not be propelled by muscular power.

The appellant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing he did not require a license under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave, finding the appellant raised no question of law alone.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing it was an unreasonable verdict because the complainant's identification evidence was inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the complainant was sufficiently well-acquainted with the appellant, having seen him daily at school and having an unobstructed view of him for 40 to 45 minutes during the offence.

The court held that the in-dock identification, supplemented by a photo line-up, was sufficient to support the conviction.

The appellant was tried by a judge and jury for arson.

In response to a jury question, the trial judge instructed the jury for the first time on the included offence of attempted arson, stating the mens rea included recklessness.

The jury convicted the appellant of attempted arson.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that whether recklessness applies to attempt offences is unsettled law.

Because the trial judge raised this issue late, depriving the defence of the opportunity to research or address it in closing, the conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

L'État requérant a demandé l'extradition de l'appelant vers la République tchèque pour des infractions de vol qualifié et de dommages matériels. À l'audience d'incarcération, l'appelant a allégué avoir été torturé par la police tchèque pour signer de faux aveux et a demandé un sursis d'instance en vertu de l'art. 7 de la Charte.

La juge d'extradition a refusé d'examiner ces allégations, concluant qu'elles relevaient du ministre de la Justice à l'étape de l'extradition, et a ordonné l'incarcération.

La Cour d'appel a accueilli l'appel, concluant que, selon l'arrêt Khadr, les allégations de torture par l'État requérant engagent l'intégrité du tribunal canadien et doivent être examinées par le juge d'extradition.

Une nouvelle audience d'incarcération a été ordonnée.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of the respondents on charges of production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The trial judge had excluded the evidence obtained from a search warrant, finding the Information to Obtain (ITO) was carelessly drafted, materially misleading, and factually incomplete, resulting in a s. 8 Charter breach.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to apply the proper test of whether a sufficient basis remained to issue the warrant after excising any offending portions.

The Court also held that even if there was a breach, the evidence should not have been excluded under s. 24(2) given the respondents' reduced expectation of privacy in the premises.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and breaking and entering, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting a co-perpetrator's out-of-court statement, failed to properly caution himself about unsavoury witnesses, and seeking to introduce fresh evidence of a witness's recantation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the hearsay statement was properly admitted, the trial judge did not need to explicitly articulate a Vetrovec warning to himself, and the fresh evidence of the recantation was incredible and lacked sufficient impeachment value to affect the verdict.

The appellants were convicted of robbery with a firearm and conspiracy to commit robbery.

On appeal, one appellant argued his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated, while the other argued the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both of these grounds.

However, both appellants also argued the trial judge's charge to the jury was fatally flawed regarding both the conspiracy and robbery counts.

The Court agreed, finding the charge failed to adequately explain the law, the three-step process for conspiracy, and the evidence relevant to each appellant's position.

The appeals were allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge's finding that he had anal intercourse with the victim was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant had admitted to the act while the victim was extremely intoxicated, provided no innocent explanation, and there was corroborating evidence of the victim's subsequent soreness.

The appellant appealed an order denying his application for certiorari to quash his committal for trial on charges of trafficking cocaine, possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of cocaine, and possession of the proceeds of crime.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the 'some evidence' threshold for committal was met based on police observations, testimony from a purchaser, and the discovery of drugs and money in an apartment to which the appellant had a key.