Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal decision.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, noting that the relevant legislation had been amended, meaning the case would not provide guidance for future cases.

Furthermore, the court found no need to elaborate on the principles applied by the summary conviction appeal judge under the previous legislation.

The appellant appealed a 2008 disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which ordered his continued detention in a medium security ward.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Court declined to remit the matter for the imposition of conditions, finding the issue moot because the Board was already conducting a multifaceted hearing that would address the appellant's current circumstances and conditions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for various firearms and stolen property offences, arguing that evidence seized during a search of his home should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The trial judge had found the search warrant invalid and a breach of s. 8, but admitted the evidence under the pre-Grant Collins framework.

Applying the new Grant framework, the Court of Appeal found that the significant carelessness of the police in drafting the Information to Obtain, combined with the intrusive nature of searching a dwelling house, outweighed the reliability and probative value of the evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the evidence excluded, and acquittals substituted.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on drug and gun charges, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The trial judge had found that the police breached the respondent's s. 10(b) rights by asking an officer safety question after he requested counsel, which led to the discovery of marijuana and a gun in the trunk.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge committed material errors in his s. 24(2) analysis, including failing to consider the respondent's own testimony, the reason for the delay in the search, and the context of the officer safety question.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittals set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his sentence for participating in a savage beating motivated by an animus towards homeless people.

The trial judge considered the appellant's military status, noting his conduct brought dishonour on the Canadian military.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's consideration of these aggravating factors and held that the sentence was measured and reasonable, appropriately balancing the gravity of the crimes with the appellant's youth, remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the global sentence of seven years imposed on the respondent for attempted murder, threatening death, and breach of probation.

The respondent had a history of domestic violence against the complainant and was on probation at the time of the vicious stabbing attack.

The Court of Appeal found the original sentence manifestly unfit given the aggravating factors, including the respondent's failure to accept responsibility.

The appeal was allowed, and the global sentence was increased to nine years (eight and a half years for attempted murder and six months consecutive for breach of probation), less credit for pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed his conviction on the basis that the trial judge failed to provide reasons for her decision.

The trial judge had given her decision with reasons to follow, but no reasons were delivered more than three years later.

The Court of Appeal held that the brief reasons provided did not meet the Sheppard test and did not permit appellate review.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed a sentence of two years' probation imposed on a young person convicted of assault causing bodily harm, which the sentencing judge designated a serious violent offence.

The young person, acting as the principal in a group assault, knocked the victim unconscious and continued to strike him, causing a broken jaw and concussion.

The Court of Appeal found the probationary term failed to reflect the proportionality principle under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The appeal was allowed, and a sentence of four months' open custody, two months' community supervision, and six months' probation was substituted.

The applicant appealed a committal for extradition on the basis that he was not linguistically present during the proceedings, as they were not interpreted for him.

The respondent conceded this point.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the committal order, and ordered a new committal hearing, noting that under section 70(1) of the Extradition Act, the required presence of the person sought includes linguistic presence.

The Crown appealed the sentencing judge's refusal to make a mandatory DNA data bank order under s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code following the respondent's conviction for robbery.

The sentencing judge declined to make the order because a DNA order had previously been made against the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the legislation requires the mandatory order to be made even if a profile already exists in the data bank, as the new order ensures the existing sample is not destroyed if the prior order is successfully appealed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to an effective sentence of nine years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the sentencing judge gave insufficient consideration to the mitigating factors of provocation and intoxication, and placed undue emphasis on the aggravating factor of being armed with a knife.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge considered all relevant factors, committed no error in principle, and imposed a sentence within the appropriate range for a violent offence involving multiple stab wounds.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a minimum secure unit.

He argued the Board erred by admitting reports referencing stayed charges, that the six-month delay in issuing reasons was unreasonable, and that the refusal to grant a conditional discharge was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reliance on risk assessment tools appropriate, declining to grant a remedy for the delayed reasons despite urging promptness, and upholding the detention order as necessary for public protection given the appellant's lack of insight and history of non-compliance.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge engaged in speculation regarding the complainant's evidence, placed undue reliance on her demeanour, and applied unequal scrutiny to the defence evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made logical inferences from the record, properly considered corroborating evidence of the complainant's post-encounter conduct, and conducted a balanced and fair assessment of the evidence.

The respondent entrusted $5,000 to a courier who attempted to take $50,000 out of Canada without reporting it, leading to the seizure of the funds.

The respondent applied for a declaration that his interest in the funds was not affected by the seizure under s. 33 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

The application judge granted the declaration, finding the respondent exercised all reasonable care.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the respondent failed to make necessary inquiries about legal restrictions or steps taken by the courier to comply, and thus did not exercise all reasonable care.

The appellants were convicted of armed robbery and possession of a loaded restricted firearm following an incident at a clothing store where a third accomplice, who was armed, died in a confrontation with the storeowner.

On appeal, they challenged the jury instructions regarding the storeowner's evidence, the elements of armed robbery, and party liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals against the armed robbery convictions and sentences, finding the jury instructions adequate.

However, the court allowed the appeals regarding the firearm possession convictions, setting them aside and ordering a new trial because the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the specific elements of that offence.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on drug charges.

The trial judge had excluded evidence of cocaine found in a knapsack the accused threw away while fleeing police, finding violations of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the accused was not detained when the police chase began, and by the time he was tackled, police had reasonable grounds for investigative detention.

Furthermore, the accused abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in the knapsack when he threw it away.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant pleaded guilty in 1989 to break and enter and assault, serving eight months in jail.

Almost twenty years later, fresh evidence revealed that another individual committed the offences.

The appellant appealed his conviction with the consent of the Crown.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, set aside the guilty pleas, and entered acquittals, noting the dangers of mistaken eyewitness identification and the court's discretion to set aside a guilty plea in the interests of justice to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge's reasons were insufficient given his acquittal on criminal negligence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably concluded the appellant's driving was a marked departure from the standard of care.

The court noted the appellant was joy riding, driving extremely quickly, and failed to slow down despite seeing an ATV, meaning his distraction by a stereo was not a mere momentary lapse but part of a pattern of dangerous driving.

The trial judge properly applied the modified objective test for dangerous driving.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by failing to consider whether the appellant reasonably believed the other vehicle was parked, and whether his driving amounted to a mere momentary lapse in otherwise normal driving.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed her conviction, arguing the issue of bolus drinking.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the summary conviction appeal judge on the issue and dismissed the appeal.