Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

Appeal from conviction for aggravated assault of a two-year-old child.

The appellant was convicted based on medical evidence establishing that the child's severe cranial fracture and extensive bruising could not have resulted from accidental falls or self-inflicted injuries.

The appellant provided multiple inconsistent accounts of events, culminating in trial testimony that the child fell from a bed and then engaged in self-injurious conduct.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's credibility based on inconsistencies with medical evidence, the implausibility of the narrative, and the failure to mention the critical fall from the bed in earlier statements.

The appeal challenged whether the trial judge erred by rejecting credibility based on the appellant's access to disclosure and presence at trial.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error and applying the curative proviso based on overwhelming evidence.

The appellant, Garett Roy, appealed convictions for three counts of sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge’s credibility assessment or in the handling of alleged inconsistencies in the evidence.

The court held that the trial judge’s reference to trauma was properly contextualized and did not reverse the burden of proof.

The court also found no material misapprehension regarding evidence about rent payments.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, K.Q.S., appealed convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault, as well as the resulting five-year custodial sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s approach to the evidence or in the treatment of delayed disclosure.

The sentence was deemed fit and within the appropriate range.

Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for violent offences against intimate partners, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

He argued the ORB erred in finding him a significant threat and in failing to grant an absolute or conditional discharge, emphasizing a four-year period of stability while on bail.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ORB's decision, finding it reasonably concluded the appellant posed a significant threat due to his psychiatric history, ongoing symptoms, medication non-compliance, and impaired insight.

The court also found that a detention order was necessary given the inadequacy of the Mental Health Act to manage his risk, and that the ORB had implicitly considered and rejected a conditional discharge.

The appellant, previously found NCRMD for assault with a weapon and robbery, appealed a conditional discharge disposition by the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant argued the Board failed to fulfill its inquisitorial role and improperly shifted the burden of proof regarding whether he posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had sufficient evidence to make an informed decision and did not shift the burden of proof, as its concerns about the appellant's stability were amply supported by psychiatric evidence.

The appellant appealed a sentence of two years imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice following guilty pleas to several counts including robbery.

The original joint submission between Crown and defence was for 18 months, but defence counsel requested the sentencing judge impose two years to enable the appellant to access addiction assistance in a penitentiary.

The Crown consented to this request.

However, the appellant was not placed in a penitentiary but rather remained in a detention facility awaiting trial on another matter.

The Crown subsequently sought to have the original 18-month joint submission imposed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted an 18-month sentence, while increasing the probation period to two years to further rehabilitation goals.

Application for appointment of counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for an appeal of conviction and sentence.

The applicant was convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm and forcible confinement following a two-day trial and sentenced to 48 months' imprisonment.

Legal Aid Ontario refused to fund the appeal based on lack of merit.

The applicant established lack of financial means but failed to meet the necessity threshold for appointment of counsel.

The court found that while some grounds of appeal were arguable, the applicant could effectively advance them without counsel, the record was manageable, and the court could properly decide the appeal without defence counsel assistance.

The applicant sought bail pending appeal of his conviction for first degree murder in the killing of a victim on June 20, 1981.

The applicant had been tried four times for the offence: the first conviction was set aside on Charter grounds, the second and third trials resulted in hung juries, and the fourth trial resulted in conviction.

The applicant had been on bail for many years during the proceedings and had complied with all bail conditions.

The court applied the three-part test under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code: (1) the appeal is not frivolous; (2) the applicant will surrender into custody; and (3) detention is not necessary in the public interest.

The court found all three criteria satisfied and granted bail pending appeal, increasing the recognizance to $750,000.

The appellant appealed convictions under s. 259(4)(b) of the Criminal Code for driving while disqualified.

The appellant also challenged a forfeiture order that included his pick-up truck, alleged that police seized items outside the scope of the forfeiture order, and sought variation of a probation condition prohibiting possession of housebreaking tools that prevented him from working in construction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions and forfeiture order but approved a variation of the probation condition to permit possession of tools required for his livelihood, subject to prior written approval of his probation officer.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had issued a split decision regarding the appellant's security level and privileges.

The Court of Appeal found that while the case was complex and there was some ambiguity in the evidence, the majority's reasons were not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting that a fresh review hearing was scheduled shortly where the appellant's needs and progress could be reassessed.

The respondent, whose murder conviction was overturned and a new trial ordered, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown brought a motion seeking direction on whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under s. 679(7.1) of the Criminal Code to hear the bail application after the respondent had already appeared in the Superior Court.

The Court of Appeal held that it has concurrent jurisdiction with the trial court over bail applications pending a new trial, even after the accused's first appearance in the trial court.

However, given the anticipated length and need for viva voce evidence, the Court declined to hear the application and directed that it be heard in the Superior Court.

The appellant appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board ordering her detention pursuant to section 672.54(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Board had found that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety, and evidence showed her conduct had deteriorated while in hospital and the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the Board's conclusion that a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for aggravated assault and other offences.

The sentencing judge had credited the respondent's 16 months of pre-sentence custody as equivalent to almost three years, reducing the appropriate sentence to 14 months, which was then ordered to be served conditionally.

The Crown argued that pre-sentence custody cannot be used to reduce a penitentiary-range sentence to under two years to make a conditional sentence available.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 719(3) of the Criminal Code, a sentencing judge may take pre-sentence custody into account when determining the appropriate range of sentence for the purposes of the conditional sentencing regime.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for assault, criminal harassment, breach of recognizance, and breach of probation arising from the termination of a common-law relationship.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in applying the rule in Brown v. Dunn to reject the appellant's self-defence evidence on the assault charge, as the record showed the complainant had been cross-examined on the issue.

The assault conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

The remaining convictions were upheld.

The global sentence was reduced from four years to two years less a day, plus three years' probation, to account for pre-trial custody and to avoid double punishment for conduct already sentenced.

The appellant appealed his sentence for various offences including theft of a motor vehicle, theft of gas, and police pursuit.

The original joint submission was for a penitentiary sentence to allow the appellant to receive drug treatment.

The sentencing judge rejected the joint submission without inquiring further into the availability of suitable programs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the record was insufficient to address rehabilitation concerns.

With fresh evidence of an available residential drug treatment program, the sentence was reduced to 9 months (time served) followed by probation with a condition to complete the treatment program.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted to the respondent on the basis of a 21-month delay violating her s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The respondent was charged with aggravated assault and failing to provide the necessaries of life after her infant child suffered multiple fractures.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in calculating the delay attributable to the Crown and overemphasized the prejudice suffered by the respondent.

The stay was set aside and the matter remitted for trial, with Feldman J.A. dissenting.

The appellant appealed his conviction for attempted murder arising from a shooting during a drug transaction.

He argued the gun discharged accidentally during a struggle initiated by the victim.

The Court of Appeal found two reversible errors in the trial judge's charge to the jury: improperly instructing the jury that a finding of deliberate fabrication by the appellant could be used as positive evidence of guilt without independent evidence of concoction, and failing to instruct the jury on the use of the victim's criminal record and disposition for violence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, seeking to introduce fresh evidence that he was in custody on a date the complainant claimed to have seen him prior to the offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence and the appeal, finding that the specific date was of no particular significance in the context of the trial and the fresh evidence could not reasonably be expected to have affected the trial judge's acceptance of the identification evidence.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposing a 20-month conditional sentence for impaired driving causing death, arguing that the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to denunciation and general deterrence and erred in finding community safety could be protected.

The majority held that the sentencing judge carefully considered the offender’s psychiatric history, long abstinence, remorse, support structure, treatment compliance, and the statutory requirements for a conditional sentence.

Applying the appellate deference principles later articulated in the Supreme Court’s conditional sentence jurisprudence, the majority found no error in principle and no demonstrable unfitness.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and imposed 20 months’ incarceration, emphasizing the gravity of impaired driving causing death and the need for stronger external controls and denunciatory effect.

The appellant appealed a sexual assault conviction, arguing that the trial judge improperly relied on prior consistent statements, made an unreasonable finding regarding attempted anal intercourse, and reversed the onus when discussing physical evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not use prior consistent statements to bolster credibility, but only to identify the scope of the alleged recent fabrication and assess the explanation offered.

The court further held that the impugned factual finding was reasonably open on the evidence, including testimony and medical evidence.

It also found no onus reversal, as the trial judge merely noted the absence of an explanation capable of raising a reasonable doubt in the context of an admitted intercourse and consent defence.

The appeal was dismissed.