Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm and his 7-year mandatory minimum sentence.

The conviction appeal grounds included inadequate jury instructions on eyewitness identification (including recognition and in-dock ID), insufficient caution on after-the-fact conduct, and inflammatory Crown closing remarks.

The sentence appeal grounds challenged the finding that the unrecovered gun was a "firearm" and the imposition of a consecutive sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no reversible errors given the trial context and the evidence.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and assault involving a child victim between ages 11 and 14.

The respondent had made admissions in a voluntary police statement but denied the allegations at trial.

The trial judge found the respondent's denials not credible and characterized portions of the police statement as a confession to a sexual crime, yet acquitted the respondent.

The appellate court found the trial judge engaged in faulty reasoning, failed to make necessary findings of fact, failed to reconcile conflicting evidence, and provided insufficient reasons for the acquittal.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on all counts.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering detention in a secure forensic unit became moot upon the appellant's death while in custody.

The Court of Appeal considered whether special circumstances warranted proceeding with the appeal despite the general rule that appeals abate upon the death of the appellant.

Finding no systemic issues, legal questions of general public importance, or collateral consequences that would justify exercising discretion to hear the appeal, the court dismissed the appeal as abated.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The complainant testified she was asleep when the sexual activity occurred and had no recollection of it.

The appellant accepted that sexual activity had occurred based on DNA evidence but claimed no recollection and denied he would engage in non-consensual intercourse.

The trial judge instructed the jury on the requirement that the Crown prove the appellant knew the complainant was not consenting.

The appeal raised three grounds: whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the knowledge requirement, whether the trial judge erred in instructing on circumstantial evidence, and whether the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

The appellants appealed from the dismissal of an application for mandamus challenging a Justice of the Peace's refusal to issue process arising from a private information.

The lower court found that the Justice of the Peace had acted within jurisdiction and did not deny the appellants natural justice.

The appeal was scheduled for hearing but faced adjournment requests due to the co-appellant's health concerns.

The court granted one final opportunity for oral submissions to be heard on a peremptory basis.

The applicant sought an order under section 684 of the Criminal Code appointing counsel to represent him on his appeal of a second-degree murder conviction and life sentence with 12-year parole ineligibility.

The applicant was denied legal aid based on failing to meet financial eligibility criteria.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had sufficient means to fund his appeal, having savings of approximately $12,000 and monthly income of $900, and that it was not in the interests of justice to appoint counsel given the availability of duty counsel assistance through the Ontario Inmate Appeal Duty Counsel Program.

The appellant appealed an order of Forestell J. concerning the jurisdiction of a trial judge to issue a bench warrant to compel the personal attendance of the accused in summary conviction proceedings.

The appellant filed a motion seeking to compel the attendance of three individuals to provide testimony regarding whether the appellant appeared in court on September 15, 2017.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion as the evidence sought had no relevance to the issue on appeal, which concerned the trial judge's jurisdiction to issue the bench warrant.

The court ordered the appellant to perfect her appeal by August 31, 2018, with no extensions permitted, and warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice.

Two separate appeals concerning the entrapment defence in dial-a-dope drug trafficking investigations.

In Williams' case, the trial judge found entrapment and stayed drug trafficking charges, but the Crown appealed.

In Ahmad's case, the trial judge rejected an entrapment application and convicted the accused.

The Court of Appeal held that police may provide opportunities to sell drugs to persons associated with phone lines reasonably suspected of being used in dial-a-dope operations, even without reasonable suspicion that those individuals are engaged in criminal activity, provided the police are conducting a bona fide inquiry.

The majority found no entrapment in either case.

The concurrence reached the same result but on the basis that police had reasonable suspicion that both accused were engaged in criminal activity.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and common assault by a trial judge sitting without a jury.

He was sentenced to 42 months' imprisonment on the sexual assault conviction and one year concurrent on the common assault conviction.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his sexual assault conviction, arguing that the trial judge's findings of corroborative evidence were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly identified corroborating evidence in the complainant's flight from the house naked in February and the neighbours' observations of her state and demeanor, which provided powerful confirmation of her account of sexual and physical assault.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and unlawful entry into a dwelling house following a seven-day trial.

He received a sentence of two years less a day imprisonment and two years of probation.

The appellant sought bail pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding serious deficiencies in the appellant's bail compliance history, material omissions in his affidavits regarding outstanding breach charges, and insufficient grounds of appeal to overcome public interest considerations.

The trial judge's findings regarding the victim's incapacity to consent due to extreme intoxication were well-grounded in evidence and revealed no obvious error.

Appeal from convictions for possession of a firearm while prohibited and possession of a firearm without a licence.

The appellant was prohibited from possessing firearms under a lifetime order.

While on parole, he told his girlfriend his gun was at a firearms dealer in a nearby town.

Police discovered a high-powered rifle for sale under his name at the store.

The appellant testified he had no control over the firearm and that it was being sold on behalf of his brother-in-law to secure a loan.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence and convicted him.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in his approach to the failure of the defence to call certain witnesses, including reversing the burden of proof by requiring corroborating evidence and making improper inferences about witnesses refusing to lie for the appellant.

The Crown appealed a 90-day intermittent sentence imposed following a guilty plea to production of marijuana and fraudulent consumption of electricity.

The sentencing judge imposed the minimal sentence based on personal views regarding the impending legalization of marijuana, without addressing proper sentencing principles.

The appellate court found the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to provide adequate reasons and imposed an unfit sentence.

The court allowed the appeal and imposed an 18-month sentence with execution stayed, finding that specific deterrence and rehabilitation had been met and that re-incarceration would not be in the interests of justice.

The Crown appealed a directed verdict of acquittal entered at the close of its case on a charge of manslaughter.

The trial judge had held that the Crown was bound by its factual theory that the accused was the getaway driver and that witness evidence precluded such a finding.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge applied the wrong legal test for a directed verdict and erred in restricting the Crown to a single factual theory.

The court found ample evidence upon which a reasonable jury could convict under section 21(2) of the Criminal Code based on a common unlawful purpose to commit robbery, regardless of the accused's specific role.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed his conviction for fraud in the amount of approximately $1.9 million and his sentence of three and one-half years imprisonment.

The central issue on the conviction appeal was whether the appellant knew that his purported client did not exist.

The trial judge found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant was a knowing participant in the fraudulent scheme.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no reversal of the burden of proof and that the inferences drawn by the trial judge were reasonably available on the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding that the additional six months imposed on the appellant compared to his co-accused was justified by his status as a lawyer and the aggravating role that status played in the commission of the offence.

The applicant sought a review of a bail judge's decision denying bail pending appeal of his conviction for two counts of sexual interference and two counts of sexual assault against his minor daughters.

The applicant argued the bail judge erred in applying the public confidence test from R. v. Oland and that her decision was clearly unwarranted.

The Chief Justice dismissed the application, finding no material errors of fact or law and that the bail judge's assessment of the seriousness of the offences, the merits of the appeal, and the likelihood of parole were all reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant was convicted of breaking into and assaulting a 68-year-old woman and breaking into and raping a 54-year-old woman.

He was declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate term.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the admission of DNA evidence obtained through a saliva sample, arguing his Charter rights were violated.

He also challenged the trial judge's failure to preserve evidence and appealed his indeterminate sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no Charter violations in the DNA seizure, that the trial judge properly exercised her discretion regarding the destroyed evidence, and that the indeterminate sentence was appropriate given the appellant's high risk of reoffending and consistent refusal to engage in treatment.

Appeals from conviction and sentence in a complex fraud case involving a scheme to divert millions of dollars from the Canadian Revenue Agency.

The appellants were convicted of fraud over $5,000 following a four-month jury trial.

The appellants challenged their convictions on multiple grounds including delay, issue estoppel, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions.

The Crown appealed the quantum of the fine in lieu of forfeiture imposed on one appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals and the sentence appeals, but granted leave to appeal on the sentencing issues.

The appellant was convicted of unlawfully importing cocaine into Canada contrary to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

He appealed on two grounds: that the trial judge failed to address his defence meaningfully and failed to undertake proper analysis under the third step of the R. v. W.(D.) inquiry.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge adequately addressed the defence theory that the appellant was an unwitting "blind mule" and properly applied the reasonable doubt standard.

The evidence established that cocaine was found in the appellant's luggage, and the only live issue was knowledge.

The trial judge rejected the defence assertion that unknown baggage handlers planted the drugs, finding it speculative and unsupported by evidence.

The respondent pleaded guilty to manslaughter after abandoning her two-year-old child for several days, resulting in the child's death from dehydration.

The trial judge imposed a sentence of three years in the penitentiary.

The Crown appealed, arguing the sentence was manifestly inadequate and failed to reflect the respondent's moral blameworthiness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the sentence was at the very bottom of the acceptable range, the trial judge made no errors in principle and the sentence was not clearly unreasonable.