Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against a Not Criminally Responsible by Reason of Mental Disorder (NCR) verdict entered in 2013 following a guilty plea to two counts of aggravated assault.

This was the applicant's second application for an extension of time, the first having been denied in 2016.

The applicant raised new grounds of appeal based on an allegedly uninformed plea and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting reconsideration and granted the extension of time, finding that the interests of justice favoured allowing the appeal to proceed despite the significant delay and prejudice to the Crown.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life with 12 years parole ineligibility.

He appealed both conviction and sentence, and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence and credibility.

However, the court granted leave to appeal the sentence, reducing the parole ineligibility period from 12 to 10 years.

The court held that pre-sentence custody conditions, especially those exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, are a relevant mitigating factor in determining parole ineligibility under s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code, even without a Charter application, disagreeing with previous Superior Court decisions.

The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The appellant, A.R., appealed convictions on 30 counts, including serious sexual offences and physical abuse of her children, and cruelty to pets.

The appeal raised two arguments: first, that the trial judge misapplied R. v. W.(D.) by requiring corroboration of the appellant's evidence; and second, that the trial judge erred by conflating "proven absence of motive" with "absence of evidence of motive" regarding the children's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapplication of W.(D.) and that the trial judge properly considered the absence of evidence of motive as one factor in assessing credibility.

The appellant sought judicial review by way of certiorari to quash an order of a justice of the peace in a speeding ticket prosecution.

The justice of the peace had adjourned the trial and reserved the appellant's right to argue a stay motion based on Crown non-disclosure at the resumed trial date.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the order was interlocutory and that there was no denial of natural justice.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, holding that the justice of the peace's trial management ruling was within jurisdiction and did not preclude the appellant from pursuing his stay motion.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and common assault by a trial judge sitting without a jury.

He was sentenced to 42 months' imprisonment on the sexual assault conviction and one year concurrent on the common assault conviction.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his sexual assault conviction, arguing that the trial judge's findings of corroborative evidence were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly identified corroborating evidence in the complainant's flight from the house naked in February and the neighbours' observations of her state and demeanor, which provided powerful confirmation of her account of sexual and physical assault.

The appellant appealed her convictions for two counts of fraud over $5,000 and her concurrent six-year sentences.

The fraud involved real estate transactions and promissory notes orchestrated by the appellant and her husband.

The trial judge found the appellant was an active participant in the scheme, occupying management positions and aiding her husband.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdict reasonable and supported by evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the large-scale fraud had devastating consequences on multiple victims, requiring emphasis on denunciation and general deterrence.

The appellant, found NCR in 2007, appealed an Ontario Review Board order transferring him from a general forensic unit to a secure forensic unit.

The hospital recommended the transfer because the appellant's repeated breaches of the anti-smoking policy and drug use resulted in the suspension of his indirectly supervised passes, making his detention on the general unit more restrictive due to staffing limitations.

The secure unit offered better access to necessary substance abuse programming.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition reasonable as it would enhance the appellant's rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The appellants were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime.

They appealed their convictions on the grounds that jurors were exposed to extrinsic information (including internet searches and old newspaper articles) during the trial, and that the trial judge erred in her instructions on the co-conspirator hearsay exception.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable possibility that the extrinsic information affected the verdict given the trial judge's instructions and the nature of the information.

The court also upheld the trial judge's conspiracy instructions as compliant with the Carter and Mapara framework.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting his evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's third reason for disbelieving the appellant—that he perjured himself at a PSA hearing—was unsupported by the trial record.

Because this error greatly affected the credibility assessment, the appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his global sentence of 14 years' imprisonment for multiple offences arising from a violent home invasion and possession of a prohibited firearm.

He argued the sentence was crushing and demonstrably unfit given his youth, minor prior record, and rehabilitative efforts in custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was within the appropriate range.

The court emphasized the gratuitous physical violence, permanent psychological damage inflicted on the victims, and the terrorization of the family, which included holding a loaded gun to a child's head.

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, a police officer convicted of assault causing bodily harm, fabricating evidence, and obstructing justice, applied for bail pending appeal.

The convictions stemmed from an incident where the appellant violently assaulted a civilian, which was captured on video.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the appeal to be frivolous given the overwhelming video evidence that contradicted the appellant's version of events.

The court also held that the public interest in maintaining confidence in the administration of justice strongly favoured enforceability of the sentence.

The Crown appealed a 14-month conditional sentence imposed for aggravated assault.

The respondent conceded that a conditional sentence was not legally available for this offence.

The Court of Appeal agreed that a sentence of incarceration was appropriate but, noting the respondent had already served 11 months of the sentence, his strong rehabilitative potential, and Gladue principles, varied the sentence to 11 months' time served plus 12 months' probation.

The accused was convicted of indecent exposure based primarily on the non-expert recognition evidence of a transit officer who identified him from a surveillance video still.

The trial judge admitted the evidence without a voir dire.

The summary conviction appeal judge found a voir dire should have been held but applied the curative proviso, concluding the evidence would inevitably have been admitted.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that while the 'prior acquaintance/better position' test applies, it was not inevitable that the evidence would have been admitted had a voir dire revealed the officer's familiarity was based on a single brief encounter two years prior.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition granting the respondent an absolute discharge.

The respondent had been found not guilty of second-degree murder by reason of insanity in 1983.

The Board concluded the respondent posed a minimal risk to the public, relying partly on his attending psychiatrist's belief that he would continue his relationship with the hospital.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence showing that the respondent severed his relationship with the psychiatrist following the absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding it undermined a central premise of the Board's reasoning, and ordered a new hearing.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible and detained at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital for 28 years, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention.

The appellant had a long-standing practice of refusing to attend Board hearings, refusing counsel, and refusing all psychiatric treatment.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board erred in law by failing to recognize its inquisitorial role under the Criminal Code.

Given the treatment impasse, the Board had a duty to consider making further inquiries rather than simply recapitulating the static situation.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing ordered, with the Court noting the Board has jurisdiction to appoint amicus curiae to assist in such cases.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of assault and two counts of uttering threats against his wife.

His summary conviction appeal was dismissed, though his sentence was varied to a conditional discharge.

He sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and failed to consider inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the summary conviction appeal court judge's conclusion that the trial judge's credibility findings were entitled to deference and supported by the record.

The appellant challenged jury convictions for multiple sexual offences against two child complainants and appealed an eight-year penitentiary sentence.

The court rejected the unreasonable verdict argument, holding that despite material inconsistencies, the core allegations remained intact and the jury was properly instructed on credibility concerns.

The court also held that medical opinion evidence concerning vaginal penetration was relevant to one complainant but irrelevant to counts involving the other complainant; however, the evidentiary error and absence of a limiting instruction caused no substantial wrong and were cured under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

On sentence, the court found the trial judge had set the range too high by over-relying on a more aggravated comparator case and reduced the custodial sentence to six and a half years, in addition to pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated August 7, 2002.

The Court of Appeal found no basis on the record to conclude that the Board's decision was unreasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for harassment and his sentence.

He argued the conviction resulted from a violation of a peace bond that should not have been issued, and that his sentence of 12 months plus three years probation was illegal because it was added to a three-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, noting the peace bond had to be observed while outstanding.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge had credited pre-sentence custody and imposed a lawful sentence of 12 months plus three years probation.