Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant appealed his sentence for convictions including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

His primary grounds were that the trial judge failed to consider his Indigenous roots (Gladue factors), the impact of contracting COVID-19 in pre-sentence custody, and his rehabilitation efforts.

The Court of Appeal found that the record did not support these submissions, as the trial judge had indeed considered these factors when accepting a lenient joint submission.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Ante Mihaljevich, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal noted that the appellant abandoned the appeal.

The appellant appealed convictions for prolonged sexual abuse of his stepdaughter and appealed sentence, seeking to rely on fresh Gladue evidence.

The court held there was no reviewable error in the trial judge’s application of the credibility principles in W.D. and dismissed the conviction appeal.

Although the Crown consented to admission of the fresh Gladue report, the court found the appellant’s claim to Gladue consideration weak, the report speculative on causation, and the offences so serious that Aboriginal background did not materially affect sentence fitness.

Both conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for several offences including assaulting police officers, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had ordered his detention in a secure forensic unit, rejecting a joint request by the appellant and the hospital for a hybrid order that would allow discretion to transfer him to a general unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was supported by evidence of the appellant's continuing behavioural issues and risk to public safety, and that the Board properly applied the least onerous and least restrictive test.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering that he continue to be subject to a Conditional Discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board made serious errors of law, as there was no positive evidence that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant had been living in the community for almost five years, adhered to his medication, and had the support of his treatment team for an absolute discharge.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted an absolute discharge.

The appellant pleaded guilty to attempted break and enter and related offences, receiving a sentence of two years less a day and three years' probation.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by denying credit for five months of pre-trial custody without providing reasons.

The Court of Appeal agreed the trial judge erred in principle by failing to provide reasons for denying credit.

However, given the appellant's lengthy criminal record and the fact that the offences occurred shortly after his statutory release, the Court concluded the sentence was not demonstrably unfit and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the conviction did not depend on accepting the police evidence, as the appellant's own evidence established both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence.

The appellant, a government employee, was convicted of fraud on the government and breach of trust after directing government funding applicants to a consulting firm that subcontracted work to his wife's company.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge misinterpreted s. 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code and erred in admitting offshore banking documents obtained contrary to foreign law.

He also appealed his six-month custodial sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 121(1)(c) does not require the accused to personally benefit when a family member receives the benefit, the admission of the banking documents did not render the trial unfair, and the sentence was fit given the need for general deterrence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the verdict was unreasonable because there was no direct evidence identifying him as the occupant of the apartment where the drugs were found.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly based his conclusion on the entire body of circumstantial evidence, which included the sublease in the appellant's name, his expired identity documents found in the apartment, and his car parked in the apartment's space.

The appellant pleaded guilty to attempted murder and threatening death after deliberately driving over his estranged wife and dragging her under his vehicle.

He was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge erred in finding he knew he dragged the victim, categorizing the offence as 'stark horror', and admitting prejudicial victim impact statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence reflected the appellant's moral culpability and the numerous aggravating features of the domestic violence offence.

The appellant was convicted of possession of Ecstasy for the purpose of trafficking and production of Ecstasy.

During the investigation, police obtained a general warrant under s. 487.01 of the Criminal Code to conduct repeated covert entries and searches of a commercial office space and storage units.

The appellant appealed the convictions, arguing that the general warrant violated his s. 8 Charter rights because s. 487.01 does not authorize repeated covert entries and the statutory requirements were not met.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a covert entry and search is an investigative technique under s. 487.01, no other provision authorized the technique, and the warrant was in the best interests of the administration of justice.

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his O'Connor application for third-party police records relating to an alternate suspect, and in relying on prior consistent statements of the victim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that counsel's bald assertion that the alternate suspect was the shooter was insufficient to meet the likely relevance threshold for the O'Connor application.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 12-year sentence was fit for a planned shooting in a public place by an offender with a related criminal record.

The Crown appealed a sentence of six months' imprisonment and three years' probation imposed on the respondent for failing to provide the necessaries of life, which contributed to the death of her 22-month-old son.

The Court of Appeal found the original sentence manifestly unfit given the enormity of the crime, noting that an 18-month sentence would have been appropriate under the previous regime.

However, because the respondent had already served her sentence, was out of custody, and had presented fresh evidence of rehabilitation and counselling, the Court declined to return her to custody and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the phrase 'known to the police' and in delaying the ruling on his stay application until the end of the trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's interpretation reasonable and the timing of the stay ruling a proper exercise of discretion that caused no prejudice.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was deemed fit.

The appellant appealed jury convictions for multiple sexual offences involving his niece and sought leave to appeal a three-year penitentiary sentence.

The court held that contextual evidence concerning an unrelated child protection matter was admissible as necessary narrative surrounding the appellant's admissions, and any prejudicial effect was outweighed by the probative value of the confessions.

The court also held that the complainant's disclosures to family and friends were admissible as narrative evidence under the prior consistent statement jurisprudence, and that the jury charge did not require further limiting instructions in the circumstances of the defence theory.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed because the sentence was not manifestly unfit and disclosed no error in principle.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of three accused charged with driving while disqualified.

The accused had signed standard pre-printed prohibition orders that failed to set out the full penal consequences of driving while disqualified, as required by s. 260(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued that the presumption of regularity should apply to cure the defective forms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the presumption of regularity did not apply because the written forms were explicitly deficient and there was no reason to presume the court clerk went beyond the written terms when explaining the orders.

The appellant, a professional bus driver, appealed his conviction for dangerous driving after he drove a bus too far to the right and struck a curb.

He argued that the trial judge erred in rejecting his defence of steering failure and that the reasons for judgment were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the steering was functional prior to impact and that the appellant's delayed reaction constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed on a youthful first-time offender who pleaded guilty to three armed robberies and dangerous driving.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle by the trial judge.

The Court deferred to the trial judge's balancing of general deterrence and denunciation against significant mitigating factors, including the respondent's strict bail compliance for three and a half years and his successful rehabilitation efforts.

The appellant was arrested for impaired driving and detained in a police cell for 11 hours with virtually no contact with police officers.

He sought a stay of proceedings, arguing his s. 9 Charter right against arbitrary detention was breached.

The trial judge and summary conviction appeal court judge dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal found that the 11-hour detention was indeed arbitrary and breached s. 9 of the Charter.

However, the Court concluded that a stay of proceedings was not the appropriate remedy, as the breach occurred post-offence and did not impact trial fairness or the gathering of evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the 20-month sentence (7 months plus 13 months pre-trial custody credit) imposed on the respondent for pointing a firearm, assault with a weapon, and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order.

The respondent had a lengthy criminal record, was on probation for harassing the victim, and was subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence demonstrably unfit, noting the serious facts and negative pre-sentence report.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was increased to three years (23 months going forward after credit).