Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder following an 18-month trial.

At the appeal hearing, the self-represented appellant claimed he was unable to make submissions due to his mental state but provided no supporting medical evidence.

The Court of Appeal refused his adjournment request and, after reviewing the record, found no evidentiary or procedural errors by the trial judge.

The court noted the appellant's extensive efforts to delay and obstruct the trial process, commending the trial judge for her restraint and fairness.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder after stabbing his friend during a drunken altercation.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to give a limiting instruction on bad character evidence and by improperly instructing the jury on mens rea and intoxication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no realistic possibility that the bad character evidence was used improperly and concluding that the jury instructions, while containing errors, adequately conveyed the necessary legal principles regarding intent and intoxication.

The appellant appealed his convictions for historical sexual assault and his sentence as a dangerous offender.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting similar fact and reply evidence, and that the sentencing judge should have imposed a long-term offender order instead of a dangerous offender designation, given the potential use of anti-androgen medication.

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

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentencing judge correctly concluded there was no reasonable possibility of controlling the appellant's risk in the community, given his life-long condition and the uncertainty of his long-term commitment to taking sex drive reducing medication.

The appellants were convicted of multiple counts of GST and income tax evasion based on a net worth analysis.

Their summary conviction was upheld on appeal to the Superior Court of Justice.

They sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing the trial judge improperly stereotyped electricians and engaged in prohibited propensity reasoning by referencing documents about an unrelated fraudulent scheme.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding the trial judge's comments, while unfortunate, did not amount to reviewable error or raise significant issues of trial fairness, and the case against the appellants was overwhelming.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder and manslaughter in relation to the deaths of two sisters.

He appealed, arguing the trial judge made several evidentiary errors, including admitting frail eyewitness non-identification evidence, excluding evidence of the co-accused's motive and prior bad acts, admitting hearsay statements of the deceased, and failing to properly instruct the jury on the defence theory regarding the co-accused's prior inconsistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's discretionary evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for possession for the purpose of trafficking in slightly more than a pound of cocaine.

The Court of Appeal noted that the normal range for a first-time offender in such cases is 5 to 8 years, and the sentence imposed fell below this norm.

However, due to unusual circumstances involving fairness concerns regarding how the respondent was persuaded to plead and litigation risks, the court declined to intervene and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in drawing inferences from video evidence regarding causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's blow significantly contributed to the victim's rupture was amply supported by the record.

The sentence appeal was abandoned.

The Crown appealed an order quashing a committal for second degree murder and substituting a committal for manslaughter in the death of a 34-month-old child.

The reviewing judge had found insufficient evidence of the subjective intent required for murder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the reviewing judge erred by looking at the medical evidence in isolation and failing to consider the cumulative effect of the evidence, which could support an inference of the requisite intent.

The committal for second degree murder was restored.

The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery with a knife after holding a knife to the throat of a 70-year-old man.

He was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment in addition to 12 months' credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing it was excessive and that the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to psychiatric evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit given the serious nature of the offence and the appellant's lengthy criminal record.

The appellant appealed his sentence after being convicted of sexual assault, choking, unlawful confinement, uttering threats, assault, and failing to comply with a probation order.

The sentencing judge found the appellant to be a long-term offender and imposed a 9-year determinate sentence for the sexual assault and related offences, plus consecutive sentences for other offences and a 10-year supervision order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the sentence appropriate given the appellant's extensive record and the horrific circumstances of the offences.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in ruling the proposed opinion evidence of a psychologist inadmissible and in admitting a child's out-of-court statement.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge correctly concluded the expert evidence was unnecessary as it did not fall outside the experience of a trial judge.

The Court also found no error in admitting the out-of-court statement, as the hearsay dangers were overcome by the opportunity for cross-examination, videotape evidence of demeanour, and the child's understanding of truth and falsehood.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the use of the complainant's videotaped statement and failed to review the evidence fairly.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge did not invite the jury to use the videotaped evidence impermissibly as a prior consistent statement, and the charge was balanced.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence fell within the recognized range and the trial judge properly treated the offences as akin to a breach of trust.

The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including sexually assaulting two 14-year-old boys, and was designated a dangerous offender by the trial judge.

On appeal, the appellant argued he should have been designated a long-term offender, asserting his risk could be managed in the community with chemical castration and strict supervision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in concluding there was no reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community.

The court noted the appellant's unwillingness to take sex-inhibiting drugs and the unavailability of the required level of community supervision.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered after the trial judge granted a motion for a directed verdict.

The Court of Appeal held that the identity of names between the person the complainant identified as her assailant and the accused constituted some evidence on the issue of identity.

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

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in reviewing the search warrant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge applied the correct test and reasonably concluded the authorizing justice could have issued the warrant.

The applicant applied for judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to order her surrender to the United States under s. 57 of the Extradition Act.

She argued that the Minister failed to balance the effect of surrender against the regulatory nature of the offences, erred in treating the US prosecutor's position as irrelevant, misapplied the test for security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter, and provided inadequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the offences serious, the Minister's treatment of the prosecutor's position proper, the s. 7 analysis reasonable, and the reasons adequate.

The appellant appealed from a committal order.

The appellant subsequently abandoned her appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

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 disposition judge's refusal to make a discretionary DNA order against two young offenders convicted of break and enter and theft.

The Court of Appeal held that the disposition judge erred in failing to give reasons as required by the Criminal Code.

The Court further held that the assumption that a DNA order is in the best interests of the administration of justice for adult offenders does not apply to young offenders, and the statutory factors must be considered in light of young offender legislation principles.

The appeal was allowed and the matter referred back to the disposition judge.

The young person appellants appealed their findings of guilt and dispositions for assault with a weapon involving a machete.

They argued the trial judge intervened excessively, failed to properly apply the W.(D.) framework, and reached unreasonable verdicts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the trial judge's interventions did not render the trial unfair and his credibility findings were sound.

The disposition appeals were also dismissed, as the sentences were fit given the unprovoked nature of the violent assault and the appellants' status on bail at the time.