Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant, Jason Lusted, appealed an 18-year sentence for manslaughter, arguing the sentencing judge erred by failing to treat his expression of remorse and his guilty plea as mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal.

The court found that the sentencing judge properly exercised discretion in weighing remorse against the appellant's extensive criminal history and that the guilty plea, though not explicitly mentioned, was clearly considered within the context of the sentencing hearing.

The court emphasized the gravity of the offence and the appellant's long criminal record, affirming the fitness of the sentence.

The appellant, a former high school teacher, appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual exploitation involving two former students (D.R. and L.G.).

The appeal focused on alleged misapprehensions of evidence by the trial judge concerning L.G.'s and a corroborating witness's testimony, and a misdirection on the reasonable doubt standard, particularly regarding the R. v. W.(D.) principles.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's errors in summarizing evidence were not material and that, despite a misstatement of the W.(D.) steps, the trial judge properly applied the reasonable doubt standard to all allegations.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Roger Bristol, sought leave to appeal a total sentence of ten years imposed following convictions for 32 counts of break and enter, 34 counts of failure to comply with probation, and two counts of attempted break and enter.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave and reduced the sentence to seven years.

The appellate court found that the sentencing judge erred by mischaracterizing the offences as "home invasion robberies" failing to properly weigh the appellant's mental health challenges and their impact on moral blameworthiness, and failing to give proper effect to the "jump principle." The court also considered a "Duncan credit" for time spent in lockdown during pre-sentence custody.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering continued detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment in 2003, challenged the Board's decision to maintain his detention, arguing the Board failed to consider statutory factors regarding reintegration into society and other needs, and failed to exercise the constant vigilance required for long-term detainees with non-violent index offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had adequately considered all relevant factors and that the evidence reasonably supported the conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant appealed his convictions on two counts of dangerous driving causing death and one count of dangerous driving causing bodily harm, as well as seeking leave to appeal his sentence.

The trial judge refused to grant an adjournment to allow the appellant to retain counsel, resulting in the appellant proceeding unrepresented.

The trial judge failed to address the appellant's inability to read or write and his limited English proficiency despite being informed of these facts.

The trial judge also improperly directed the defence expert to conduct cross-examination of the Crown's expert.

The Court of Appeal found these errors deprived the appellant of a fair trial and allowed the appeal, ordering a new trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and break and enter following a judge alone trial.

The trial judge found the appellant was the main instigating force behind a home invasion robbery, though he did not physically participate, and was involved in a series of residential break-ins.

On appeal, the court allowed the appeal in part: the robbery conviction was set aside and substituted with a theft conviction; convictions on two break and enter counts were set aside and acquittals entered due to improper reliance on similar fact evidence.

The sentence of 18 months was maintained as concurrent to the remaining convictions.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault following a trial before a judge sitting without a jury.

The appellant had pleaded guilty to robbery and aggravated assault but contested the sexual assault conviction.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to consider inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, including the absence of disclosed injuries to the back of her head despite claims of repeated head impacts, inconsistency regarding the number of times she was punched in the face, and her failure to identify the appellant in a photo lineup.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty of sexual assault based on the complainant's testimony that the appellant tugged on her pants attempting to pull them down and made demands for money or for her to remove her clothing.

The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly addressed the weaknesses in the complainant's evidence and that his credibility findings were entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 15.8 months on the ground that the trial judge exceeded the Crown's position of 13 to 14 months without providing notice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the 2.8-month increase was not significant enough to require notice as a matter of fairness.

Furthermore, the sentence was fit given the appellant's multiple convictions for impaired driving, breaches of court orders, and history of domestic violence.

Five appellants appealed their convictions or the dismissal of their applications for declaratory relief regarding marijuana offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

They argued that the offences of possession and production of marijuana had been judicially repealed by previous constitutional decisions regarding medical marijuana.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the offences remain in full force and effect, and that dissatisfaction with the medical marijuana regulations does not excuse disobedience of the law.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder for the brutal beating death of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment with 15 years of parole ineligibility.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in admitting a statement to police, failing to correct Crown closing arguments, and failing to properly instruct the jury on post-offence conduct and mens rea.

He also appealed the 15-year parole ineligibility period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's rulings or jury instructions, and upholding the sentence due to the severe aggravating factors of the offence.

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

The Court of Appeal noted that the sentencing judge's reasons were not helpful and failed to address mitigating factors such as the guilty plea and rehabilitative efforts.

However, the Court ultimately concluded that the total sentences imposed were fit in all the circumstances and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for two robberies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's instruction that evidence on each count could be considered on the other counts on the issue of identity due to striking similarity.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed.

The trial judge had imposed a sentence of seven years in addition to three years of pre-trial custody.

Given the appellant's background and that this was his first jail term, the sentence was found to be manifestly excessive.

The sentence was reduced to five years concurrent on each count.

The appellant appealed his convictions for arson and break and enter, arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, relying on post-offence conduct, and accepting the evidence of an unsavoury witness without confirmatory evidence.

The Crown's theory was that the appellant, while in custody, hired an accomplice to burn down his ex-girlfriend's chip stand and break into her home.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the burden of proof, his use of a letter written by the appellant, or his reliance on the victim's testimony as confirmatory of the accomplice's evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a particularly egregious fraud involving elderly victims.

The appellant, who was in a position of trust, deprived the victims of a substantial portion of their savings and refused to acknowledge the harm or propose a method for repayment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to impose a conditional sentence, as the principles of promoting responsibility and acknowledgment of harm would not be met.

The applicant sought to set aside a 2002 dismissal order and reinstate his appeal of a dangerous offender finding.

The Court of Appeal accepted that the applicant consistently maintained an intent to appeal and bore no fault for the dismissal.

However, the court dismissed the application because the applicant failed to demonstrate any underlying merit to the appeal, noting that expert evidence showed the serious risk he poses to re-offend could not be managed by community supervision.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault by a jury, arguing the verdict was compromised because the jury was not informed of sequestration until five hours into deliberations, and because they returned mixed verdicts on related charges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable possibility of coercion from the delayed sequestration notice and concluding the verdicts were not irreconcilable.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's instruction on the burden of proof.

The appellant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while impaired.

His appeal to the Summary Conviction Appeal Court was dismissed.

He sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing the trial judge applied the wrong test and the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly assessed the evidence of impairment, including the appellant's high rate of speed, abrupt stop, and slurred speech, and that the verdict was not unreasonable.

The appellant filed a notice of abandonment for his sentence appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellant sought the extradition of the respondent, who had been convicted in California of criminal harassment.

The extradition judge discharged the respondent on the harassment charge, finding that the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the conduct underlying the California conviction corresponded to the Canadian offence of criminal harassment, as the victim's testimony did not establish she reasonably feared for her safety.

The appellant appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that section 29(1)(b) of the Extradition Act imposes a balance of probabilities standard, the victim's transcript was properly admitted, and the extradition judge's conclusion was reasonable.

The appellant was convicted of first and second-degree murder.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred by failing to give a Vetrovec warning regarding the principal Crown witness, an alleged accomplice who had originally been charged with the murders.

The Court of Appeal held that while the trial judge erred in law by failing to give the mandatory warning, the error was cured by the application of the proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, as the jury was sufficiently alerted to the dangers of the witness's evidence.

The court also dismissed several other grounds of appeal relating to bad character evidence, criminal records, reply evidence, post-offence conduct, reasonable doubt, and self-defence.