Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The Crown appealed an acquittal in a dangerous driving causing bodily harm case.

The trial judge had excluded Event Data Recorder (EDR) evidence, finding an unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8 Charter violation) and police bad faith.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in law by concluding that police lacked reasonable grounds to seize the vehicle under s. 489(2)(c) of the Criminal Code, that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in EDR data after lawful seizure, and in the s. 24(2) Charter analysis.

The Court held that EDR data, being objective and impersonal, does not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy post-lawful seizure.

It also found police acted in good faith given conflicting caselaw.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a new trial ordered with the EDR evidence admitted.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction for breach of trust and his 18-month conditional sentence.

He had been acquitted of sexual assault involving the same complainant.

The appeal challenged the conviction on grounds of insufficient reasons, unreasonable verdict, and inconsistent verdicts, and the sentence on grounds of erroneous "double counting" of aggravating factors and insufficient reasons for rejecting a suspended sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficient, the verdict reasonable and reconcilable, and the sentence appropriate.

The appellant, Dylan Hird, appealed his conviction for various offences related to the trafficking and sexual assault of a 15-year-old complainant.

The appeal focused on two grounds: the trial judge's charge to the jury regarding identification evidence and the handling of the police's failure to conduct a photo line-up.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's instructions on identification, which adequately cautioned the jury on eyewitness testimony frailties and the need to prove the appellant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's management of the photo line-up issue, concluding that the approach taken was fair to both the Crown and the defence.

The appellant pled guilty to trafficking approximately 3.5 kg of cocaine over four transactions and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge erred in applying the parity principle and in establishing an eight-year starting range before mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application of the parity principle given the co-accused's lesser roles, nor in the determination of the appropriate sentencing range for kilogram-level cocaine trafficking.

The appellant was convicted of invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and sexual interference involving his step-son, with allegations occurring when the complainant was between 8 and 13 years old.

He was acquitted of assault.

The appellant appealed on five grounds: inconsistent verdicts, admissibility of his videotaped statement to police, jury instructions on credibility across counts, jury instructions on consent, and jury instructions on prior inconsistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the verdicts reconcilable, the admission of evidence proper under s. 653.1 of the Criminal Code, and the jury instructions adequate and not prejudicial.

The Crown sought leave to appeal a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision regarding whether breath tests were administered 'as soon as practicable'.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the lower courts properly applied the established legal test to the specific facts of the case, which involved delay associated with allowing the detainee to contact a parent.

The court concluded the appeal did not raise a question of law alone of significance beyond the immediate case.

The appellant appealed convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon arising from a knife attack on one complainant, and also appealed sentence.

He argued that the trial judge failed to properly consider prior inconsistent police statements, unevenly scrutinized defence and complainant evidence, and neglected a self-defence theory.

He further contended that the sentencing judge failed to meaningfully apply Gladue principles despite the appellant's Aboriginal heritage.

The Court of Appeal rejected all grounds, found the credibility analysis fair, held the self-defence argument had in substance been addressed, and concluded the sentencing judge properly considered s. 718.2(e), the Gladue report, and relevant sentencing authorities.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of four counts of robbery and disguise with intent relating to four bank robberies.

At trial, the judge applied similar act principles to use evidence from all counts to determine the identity of the perpetrator on each individual count.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding the acts sufficiently similar and in using linkage evidence to determine similarity.

The appellant also argued the offences were theft, not robbery, as there were no express threats of violence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably concluded the acts were sufficiently similar and that a threat of violence was implied from the circumstances of demanding money from a bank teller.

The Crown appealed a one-year conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for aggravated sexual assault.

The respondent, who was HIV-positive, engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with his girlfriend on two occasions without disclosing his status.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in imposing a conditional sentence, as it failed to reflect the gravity of the offence, the breach of trust, and the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The court held that aggravated sexual assault involving HIV non-disclosure generally requires a custodial term.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to 12 months' incarceration followed by three years' probation, accounting for time served.

The Ministry of Labour appealed a decision staying or dismissing charges against the respondent employer.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no evidence of actual, irremediable prejudice to the respondent's ability to make full answer and defence simply because the employees no longer worked for the employer.

The matter was remitted to the trial court for trial.

The appellant appealed her conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and the expert's opinion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly rejected the appellant's improbable and inconsistent testimony and correctly assessed the factors proving the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder, attempted murder, and arson after driving to the home of his estranged wife's lover, shooting the lover, assaulting his wife, and setting the house on fire.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on causation under s. 231(5) of the Criminal Code by suggesting he could be liable if he actively participated in a struggle that accidentally caused the gun to discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the causation instruction was potentially confusing, it caused no prejudice because the jury's verdict demonstrated they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally shot the deceased.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's findings constituted a finding that the appellant posed a significant risk to the public, primarily through violent suicidal conduct that could cause significant harm to others.

The appellant appealed her sentence for conspiracy to rob her employer.

She argued the sentencing judge erred by considering evidence that she had previously provided information to her boyfriend enabling him to commit a serious robbery against the same victim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the earlier events were part of the circumstances of the conspiracy under section 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, and the sentence was not manifestly unreasonable.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the sentence fell within the parameters of the joint submission put forward by counsel.

The court found the joint submission to be a fair reflection of the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's serious, related, and lengthy criminal record.

The appellant appealed from a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court.

The appellant argued that the trial judge's interjection during argument resulted in unfairness and challenged the trial judge's findings of fact.

The Court of Appeal found no merit to the unfairness argument and held that the factual challenges revealed no error in law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for robbery, arguing that the trial judge erred in his jury instructions on identification evidence and improperly admitted evidence of his failure to attend work.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions and holding that the work attendance evidence was relevant to opportunity.

The sentence was also upheld as fit given the appellant's lengthy criminal record and the seriousness of the offences.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's inferences regarding the speed and location of the appellant's vehicle were amply justified by the evidence.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's decision to reject a conditional sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately assist him as a self-represented accused and erred in admitting similar fact evidence without a complete voir dire.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge went to considerable lengths to assist the appellant without improperly taking on the role of counsel.

The Court also upheld the admission of the similar fact evidence, noting there was no evidence of collusion and the incidents bore sufficient similarities to confirm the complainant's veracity.

The appellants, parents of a three-month-old child who died from severe injuries, appealed the dismissal of their application for certiorari to quash their committal for trial on charges of second degree murder.

They argued that the preliminary inquiry judge found no evidence indicating which parent caused the fatal injuries or that they acted in concert, and thus they should be discharged or committed only for manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the inquiry judge correctly concluded there was sufficient circumstantial evidence—including exclusive opportunity, motive, and awareness of the child's deteriorating health—upon which a properly instructed jury could find either or both appellants guilty of second degree murder as principals or parties.