Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant was convicted of two counts each of sexual touching and invitation to sexual touching involving his then nine-year-old granddaughter.

He was sentenced to 30 months concurrent.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility findings regarding the grandmother's testimony and alleged inconsistencies between the complainant's and her mother's evidence regarding disclosure.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal the sentence based on fresh evidence regarding the victim impact statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, no error in the trial judge's analysis of inconsistencies and collusion allegations, and that the fresh evidence was inadmissible and would not have affected the sentence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, as well as his sentence, following a domestic incident where he struck his spouse with a shovel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal grounds relating to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter and the application of the W. (D.) test for credibility.

However, the court agreed that the Kienapple principle applied, staying the conviction for assault with a weapon as it arose from the same delict.

The sentence appeal was dismissed, with the court finding the custodial sentence reasonable given the severity of the spousal abuse.

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences relating to the attempted exportation of restricted pressure transducers to Iran, including violations of the United Nations Act, Customs Act, and Criminal Code.

On appeal, he challenged the trial judge's interpretation of the technical specifications for the restricted goods and the reasonableness of the verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge correctly interpreted the specifications and reasonably concluded the appellant knowingly attempted to supply the goods to a person in Iran.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal in part, reducing the sentence on the UN offence because the trial judge erred in treating an unproven link to Iran's nuclear enrichment program as an aggravating factor.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that his arrest was unlawful and the drugs seized should be excluded.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the initial arrest was unlawful, the police were justified in conducting an investigative detention and protective pat-down search.

This search would have inevitably led to the discovery of a digital scale and a soft bulge, which, combined with the appellant's prior record, would have provided reasonable grounds for a lawful arrest and search.

The impact on the appellant's Charter rights was minimal, and the evidence was admissible.

The appellant appealed a conviction, arguing the trial judge applied a different level of scrutiny to the appellant's evidence compared to the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly instructed himself in accordance with the principles in W.(D.) and reasonably assessed the inconsistencies in the evidence.

The trial judge's credibility findings were within his purview and supported by the record.

The appellant appealed a dangerous offender finding.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge's conclusion that the appellant presented a very high risk of re-offending in domestic relationships, had speculative prospects for treatment, and lacked motivation to obtain treatment.

The Court found no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of the risk or the requirement for positive evidence of the utility of treatment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on two counts of first-degree murder and convictions for the included offence of infanticide.

The Crown argued that infanticide is not a partial defence to murder, but only an included offence if murder is not proved.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that infanticide operates as both a substantive offence and a partial defence to murder.

The Court also clarified that the mens rea for infanticide is akin to manslaughter, and that the Crown bears the burden of negating the defence of infanticide beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting three complainants and administering a stupefying drug to one of them.

The complainants alleged they felt ill after drinking wine provided by the appellant.

At trial, the Crown relied on expert evidence that GHB was found in one of the wine bottles.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh expert evidence showing that GHB occurs naturally in all red wine, including the specific brand and vintage seized.

The Court of Appeal applied the Palmer test and admitted the fresh evidence, finding it could reasonably be expected to have affected the jury's assessment of the complainants' credibility.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in cocaine in association with a criminal organization.

The trial judge found that the appellant, a full patch member of the Hells Angels, acted as a middleman to facilitate drug transactions between a police agent and a supplier.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge reasonably inferred that membership in the organization assisted in the commission of the offence, satisfying the 'in association with' requirement.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by allowing his full criminal record before the jury and by finding the arresting officer did not use excessive force.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's detailed reasons or application of legal principles.

The sentence appeal was abandoned and also dismissed.

The appellant sought to strike his guilty plea to a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing he received misleading advice from counsel regarding the consequences of the plea.

The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to demonstrate a viable defence.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal judge applied the wrong legal test, noting the focus should have been on whether the plea was informed, not whether a viable defence existed.

However, the Court denied leave to appeal due to the significant delay and the absence of a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeal was fact-driven, raised no important legal issues, and lacked strong merits.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Judge ordering a new trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the original trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the appellant's level of impairment when he was found sitting behind the wheel with the keys in the ignition.

The trial judge's error was sufficiently serious to require a new trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittals on drug and firearms charges.

The trial judge had excluded evidence, including a loaded handgun and drugs, after finding that the police violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights by seizing his cell phone during an investigative detention.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the officer was justified in seizing the cell phone for officer safety and evidence preservation, as the accused was heard telling someone 'they're here now'.

The Court found no s. 8 breach and further held that even if a breach occurred, it was not serious and the evidence should not have been excluded under s. 24(2).

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Crown improperly used a police officer's notes to refresh the complainant's memory by reading them verbatim.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the manner of refreshing memory was improper, but found no prejudice because verification occurred during a phone call between the complainant and the officer, and the complainant had some independent recollection of the calls.

The court also rejected the admission of fresh evidence as irrelevant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed from a summary conviction appeal court decision that upheld his conviction.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence irrelevant and inadmissible, and identifying no error in the summary appeal court judge's reasons.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision that quashed the youth respondent's convictions for sexual offences against a four-year-old child and ordered a new trial.

The appeal judge had found the trial judge misapprehended evidence of opportunity and applied an adult standard to the youth's testimony.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, finding the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence, did not apply an inappropriate standard to the youth's testimony, and did not impermissibly assume the youth lied simply to avoid jail.

The appellant was convicted of production of marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and wilful damage to property related to two commercial grow operations.

He appealed his 18-month sentence, arguing the trial judge improperly sentenced him as part of a criminal organization and improperly considered his immigration status as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit and that a conditional sentence would not satisfy the principle of general deterrence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a home invasion where the complainants were threatened at gunpoint, held hostage, and threatened with being set on fire.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for accepting the complainants' evidence despite its frailties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate and showed he considered the frailties and rejected the suggestion of collusion.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the six-year sentence (less pre-trial custody credit) was not manifestly unfit given the serious aggravating factors, including the appellant's role as the instigator.

The appellant sought to appeal a pre-trial motion ruling regarding the application of historical corroboration requirements to offences alleged to have occurred in the 1970s.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that the order was an interlocutory order made in an indictable proceeding and therefore not appealable until the conclusion of the trial.