Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault causing bodily harm and forcible confinement against his spouse, as well as his sentence of 7 months' incarceration.

The trial judge had accepted the complainant's evidence over the appellant's, finding the appellant not credible.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the trial judge's credibility assessments or treatment of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors for a serious domestic assault.

The appellant, J.R., appealed convictions for sexual offences against his two young daughters.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury against cross-count reasoning and propensity reasoning, and by instructing them that cross-count reasoning was permissible.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial, finding these errors required the convictions to be set aside.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference on the basis that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons.

The trial judge had stated she was confident of the appellant's guilt but reserved her reasons to address inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

However, no written or oral reasons for conviction were ever delivered.

The Crown conceded the appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial, finding that the lack of reasons prevented appellate review.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and breach of probation, as well as his sentence of 20 months imposed following a judge-alone trial.

The sole issue on the conviction appeal was whether the prosecution should have been stayed for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The trial judge found that after appropriate deductions, the delay did not exceed the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's analysis, finding no error in the attribution of delay periods and confirming that the total delay, even after correcting for one instance of double-counting, remained below 18 months.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentencing judge committed no error of law or principle.

The victim surcharge was set aside in light of R. v. Boudreault.

The appellant, a member of the Batchewana First Nation, appealed his sentence for sexual assault.

The sentencing judge imposed six months' imprisonment followed by three years of probation.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in proceeding with sentencing based on an inadequate Gladue report without ordering a supplementary report.

The court directed the Crown to obtain a supplementary Gladue report to determine whether non-custodial alternatives were available.

After receiving the supplementary report, which confirmed that the Batchewana First Nation has no formal restorative justice programs and that meaningful community-based alternatives were not available, the court concluded that denunciation must be the primary sentencing objective.

The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, finding the original sentence fit and proportionate.

Appeal from conviction for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, and from sentence of six months imprisonment.

The appellant, an Aboriginal offender, challenged the trial judge's credibility findings and the sentencing judge's failure to properly apply Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sexual assault conviction appeal, stayed the unlawful confinement conviction pursuant to the Kienapple principle, and found the sentencing judge erred by proceeding without adequate Gladue and pre-sentence reports addressing community-based sentencing alternatives.

The sentence appeal was reserved pending a supplementary pre-sentence report.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a period of parole ineligibility of 17 years.

He appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction, finding no prejudicial error in the trial judge's jury instructions regarding the fault element in murder, ante-mortem statements of the deceased, or the overall balance of the charge.

The court also dismissed the appeal from sentence, finding the 17-year period of parole ineligibility to be proportionate given the serious breach of trust involved in the killing of the appellant's benefactor.

The appellant, who was previously found NCRMD, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

At the outset of his review hearing, the appellant objected to being addressed by his legal name and to the constitution of the Board.

The Chair gave the appellant a five-second ultimatum before cutting off his audio and video feed, proceeding with the hearing in his absence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Chair acted precipitously and failed to exercise the judicial patience and restraint required under section 672.5(10)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code before excluding an accused from a hearing.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention.

It was uncontested that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety, precluding an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's conclusion that a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition was fully supported by the evidence and free of legal error.

Fresh evidence indicated the appellant was incapable of consenting to treatment, making a conditional discharge unavailable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent pled guilty to aggravated assault and was convicted of assault with a weapon after striking one victim with a beer bottle and another with a sword at a house party.

The trial judge imposed a six-month conditional sentence.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that while a conditional sentence was open to the trial judge, the duration and terms were wholly inadequate to address denunciation and general deterrence.

The appeal was allowed and the conditional sentence was increased to two years less seven days, with house arrest for the first seven months.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual offences, arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility, in his treatment of the complainant's age and the mistake of age defence under s. 150.1(5) of the Criminal Code, and by misusing evidence of sexual overtures to another young girl.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the complainant's evidence, correctly concluded the appellant did not satisfy the test under s. 150.1(5), and did not misuse the impugned evidence as general propensity evidence.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 20 years.

At trial, the defence argued that the main Crown witness was the actual shooter and attacked the integrity of the police investigation.

The trial judge permitted the lead detective to provide an investigative narrative to confirm the Crown witness's evidence.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the admission of this investigative narrative, the explanation for why a witness was not called, and the admission of prior consistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the defence's attack on the investigation justified the Crown's response and that the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the limited use of the evidence.

The 20-year parole ineligibility period was also upheld given the appellant's violent criminal record.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred by rejecting a joint submission on sentence without explicitly giving counsel an opportunity to address it.

The Court of Appeal found that counsel had an opportunity during a break in proceedings.

The Court upheld the trial judge's decision, agreeing that the joint submission was grossly inadequate and that this was one of the rare cases where it was necessary to depart from it.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for making child pornography and possession of child pornography arising from sexual activity with two complainants and images later found on a computer in his bedroom.

The court rejected the argument that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, holding that the basis for conviction was reasonably intelligible.

The court held that it was open to the trial judge to accept one complainant's detailed evidence that photographs were taken and to reject the appellant's denial.

The court also held that the inference of possession of child pornography on the bedroom computer was available on the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and his sentence of three years' imprisonment.

He argued that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated due to institutional delay following a mistrial.

He also challenged the admission of his prior guilty plea for assaulting the complainant's mother and the admission of the complainant's videotaped statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no unreasonable delay and no error in the evidentiary rulings.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the three-year penitentiary sentence was fit given the repeated sexual assaults on a child in a position of trust.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing that two search warrants authorizing the seizure of his hospital treatment records and blood samples were invalid.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge correctly applied the Garofoli test and found there was reliable evidence before the issuing justice to support the warrants.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a lengthy jail sentence imposed for offences involving violence and a specific victim.

The Court of Appeal noted that the appellant had a very lengthy record for similar offences, including previous convictions relating to the same victim.

The court held that protection of the public and the victim was paramount, and while the sentence was at the high end of the range, it was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing for a conditional sentence and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, noting the appellant's record for similar offences and that he was on probation for assaulting the same victim.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part because the trial judge failed to credit the appellant for pre-trial custody on a 2:1 basis.

The sentence on count 3 was reduced to two months consecutive.

The appellant appealed her custodial sentence, arguing for a conditional sentence.

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

The trial judge's conclusion that public safety would be endangered by a conditional sentence was supported by the appellant's long record of offences involving dishonesty and theft, and the trial judge appropriately weighed mitigating factors including the appellant's fragile health.

The Crown appealed the one-year sentence imposed on the respondent, arguing it was inadequate given his lengthy criminal record.

The Court of Appeal agreed the sentence was inadequate but declined to re-incarcerate the respondent, as he had already served the eight-month custodial portion of his sentence.

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