Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for an offence involving the theft of jewellery and the alleged use of an imitation gun.

He argued the trial judge failed to distinguish between credibility and reliability, ignored his statement to police, and that the Crown's cross-examination was improper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and that, while there were improprieties in the cross-examination, they did not destroy the appearance of a fair trial in a judge-alone proceeding.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for robbery.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence, which the Court of Appeal rejected as not capable of belief.

The Court found the trial judge conducted the trial with scrupulous fairness despite the appellant choosing to self-represent.

The verdict was not unreasonable, and the trial judge did not err in failing to expressly address the defence of intoxication, given the appellant's own testimony.

The appeal from conviction and sentence 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 his conviction for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge erred in preferring the opinion evidence of five Crown witnesses based on their past experience with impaired drivers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no prejudice because all opinion and observational evidence, along with the appellant's admission of drinking, supported a conclusion of impairment, and there was no defence evidence to the contrary.

The appellant appealed an order of the Ontario Review Board directing his continued detention at a mental health centre.

The index offence was criminal harassment.

The Board found that the appellant suffered from a major mental illness, continued to have feelings for the victim, and would likely discontinue his medication without external controls.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat was not unreasonable and was supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable due to weak eyewitness identification evidence and that the trial judge made several errors in his jury charge and evidentiary rulings.

The Crown's case relied on the complainant's selection of the appellant from a photographic line-up, supported by circumstantial evidence including the appellant's residence near the park, his ownership of a dog matching the assailant's dog, and post-offence conduct evidence from his hairdresser.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the verdict reasonable and concluding that the trial judge's instructions on eyewitness identification and his evidentiary rulings were adequate and did not render the trial unfair.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for impaired driving causing death and breach of recognizance.

At trial, the central issue was whether the appellant or the deceased passenger was driving when the vehicle rolled into a ditch.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant was the driver, noting it was amply supported by witness testimony and expert evidence.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant argued for a conditional sentence based on his aboriginal background and Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the 12-month sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the aggravating factors, including a high blood alcohol level and a prior drinking and driving conviction.

The appellant appealed his conviction for fraud and his sentence of two years less a day.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended appraisal evidence, failed to consider his honest belief in the property's value, and erred in denying a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed the appraisals, correctly applied the elements of fraud, and imposed a demonstrably fit sentence given the breach of fiduciary duty and deliberate deception.

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 appellant appealed his sentence and dangerous offender designation.

In light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Johnson, the Crown conceded the appeal.

The Court of Appeal set aside the dangerous offender finding and indeterminate sentence, and remitted the matter for a new sentence hearing pursuant to section 759(3)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant was convicted of fraud over $5,000 and assault arising from a real estate transaction where he allegedly misappropriated funds from the complainant.

The trial judge based her decision entirely on a credibility contest, finding the complainant credible and the appellant not credible.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to properly apply the principles from R. v. W.(D.) regarding reasonable doubt and credibility.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a two-year sentence, conceding that the sentence was fit but arguing it was improperly imposed.

The Court of Appeal distinguished the case from R. v. Luther, noting the sentence was fit and exactly what the appellant had requested at trial.

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

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to consider whether the Crown proved lack of consent and knowledge of lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the issues of consent or mistaken belief in consent, as the complainant was intoxicated and repeatedly said 'no'.

The sentence of 40 months' imprisonment, in addition to 16 months' pre-sentence custody, was upheld as fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction for having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower courts that the appellant was in care and control.

The court noted the appellant was heavily intoxicated, the keys were in the ignition, the car was running, and he had stated an intention to resume driving.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing the trial judge erred in refusing to prohibit cross-examination on his prior testimony at a co-accused's trial, in admitting psychiatric evidence of his predisposition to violence, and in instructing the jury on circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly ruled that cross-examination would be vetted under s. 13 of the Charter, properly admitted the psychiatric evidence after the defence opened the door, and accurately instructed the jury on circumstantial evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and assault, arguing that the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding reasonable doubt, the definition of assault, the theory of the defence, and the failure to give a limiting instruction on a prior consistent statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the charge substantially complied with the Lifchus standard for reasonable doubt and adequately stated the law on assault.

The Court also held that the trial judge adequately put the defence's position to the jury and that a limiting instruction on the prior consistent statement was unnecessary because the defence relied on it.

The Crown appealed an 18-month conditional sentence imposed on the respondent following a conviction for sexual assault involving an attempted intercourse with a developmentally handicapped woman.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent did not represent a danger to the public to be unreasonable, given the circumstances of the offence and the respondent's lengthy criminal record.

The Court granted leave to appeal, varied the sentence to 3.5 months of incarceration, and imposed a 10-year weapons prohibition under section 109 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault, threatening death, and obstructing justice after slashing two victims with an Exacto knife in their home.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in admitting his statements to police, excluding evidence of a victim's complete criminal record, refusing to allow comment on a victim's failure to testify, and permitting his own criminal record to go to the jury.

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

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the eight-year term was justified given the serious nature of the assaults and the appellant's lengthy criminal history.

The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including aggravated assault endangering life arising from a police chase where he repeatedly drove his vehicle at police officers, causing permanent disability to one officer.

He was sentenced to a total of 7 years and 9 months.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence at the sentencing hearing, that the sentence for aggravated assault was excessive, and that the global sentence violated the totality principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence relevant to deterrence, the sentence fit given the viciousness of the conduct and prior record, and the global sentence appropriate.