Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant, Salvatore Lamacchia, appealed an eight-year global sentence for two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and breach of recognizance.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to consider the totality principle and did not give sufficient weight to his community work.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge was alert to the totality principle and properly balanced aggravating and mitigating factors, including the appellant's community work.

The court reiterated the high standard for appellate intervention in sentencing.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition that continued his detention.

He sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, a transfer to a less secure psychiatric facility.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was reasonable, supported by expert evidence.

The request for transfer was also denied as the proposed facilities lacked all-male units, a necessary condition given the appellant's history.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that reduced fines and eliminated a custodial sentence for environmental offences under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).

The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellate judge that the sentencing judge erred in principle by comparing the case to one involving deliberate environmental harm, thus upholding the elimination of the custodial sentence for the individual respondent.

However, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the reduction of fines, finding no error in the original sentencing judge's imposition of separate fines for each count, and restored the original fines for both the corporate and individual respondents.

The appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault after randomly attacking and raping a stranger walking home at night.

He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge misapplied Gladue principles by finding his Indigenous heritage moot due to the severity of the offence, and failed to apply principles of proportionality and restraint.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge erred in his Gladue analysis, the 12-year sentence remained fit given the egregious nature of the random attack and the need to prioritize denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant appealed a sentence of 12 years imposed for sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and breaches of court orders.

The appellant had sexually assaulted his teenaged step-granddaughter on an ongoing basis for one and a half years, including various forms of sexual abuse.

The appellant had a prior conviction for sexual interference with the same victim when she was 10 years old and had also been convicted of sexually abusing the victim's mother in the 1990s.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence as fit and within the appropriate range.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the sentencing judge was functus officio when imposing a non-communication order approximately one month after the original sentencing, finding it was a permissible administrative correction.

The appellant appealed his conviction on two counts of possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking and his sentence of nine years less 48 days.

He challenged the validity of a search warrant for an apartment on the grounds that there were insufficient grounds to support it, arguing the grounds amounted only to suspicion.

The trial judge had dismissed the Charter application.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the information to obtain the warrant contained credible and reliable facts supporting reasonable grounds to believe the appellant was trafficking drugs and that evidence would be found in the apartment.

The court found no error in the trial judge's application of the legal test and dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals.

An appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention at Brockville Mental Health Centre following a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing that the Board's conclusion that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, particularly regarding the change in his diagnosis from schizophrenia to antisocial personality disorder and the role of cannabis use.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments and dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion reasonable based on the revised diagnosis, evidence linking cannabis use to psychotic symptoms, a history of substance abuse, and a pattern of aggressive and violent behavior.

The Crown moved to quash an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that there was no provision in either the Criminal Code or the Criminal Proceedings Rules for an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a stand-alone Charter application.

The appellant had brought a constitutional challenge under section 672.56 of the Criminal Code using the Criminal Proceedings Rules rather than the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that the procedural irregularity did not prejudice any party and that the substance of the procedure, which was civil and declaratory in nature, must prevail over its form.

The court exercised its discretion to hear the appeal despite the procedural error.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and forcible confinement.

The trial judge imposed a sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

The appellant abandoned his sentence appeal and challenged only the convictions on three grounds: (1) the trial judge's instructions on the timing of complaints in sexual assault cases; (2) the trial judge's review of evidence relating to two separate incidents on both sexual assault counts; and (3) the overall fairness and balance of the jury charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's instructions when considered in the context of the trial as a whole.

The appellant appealed both his conviction for drug trafficking and his sentence of 12 months imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the evidence fully justified the conclusion that crack cocaine in the possession of a third party came from the appellant through an intermediary.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider that this was a one-off transaction for a minimal amount of crack cocaine with no profit motive, and by failing to adequately weigh the appellant's rehabilitation efforts and significant immigration consequences.

The sentence was reduced to 160 days, which the appellant had already served through pre-sentence custody.

The young person appealed his manslaughter conviction arising from a group assault that resulted in the victim's death.

He argued his right to silence was violated when the Crown cross-examined him using information allegedly derived from his compelled testimony at the adult co-accuseds' preliminary hearing.

He also challenged the trial judge's jury instructions on duress and aiding and abetting, and the admission of the co-accuseds' guilty pleas.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no violation of the right to silence, adequate jury instructions, and that any error regarding the guilty pleas caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed a net sentence of two years and seven months imposed following a guilty plea to possession of a prohibited firearm with ammunition.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in drawing unwarranted inferences, imposing an excessive sentence, and failing to give adequate credit for harsh bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fell within the appropriate range given the appellant's prior record, breach of a weapons prohibition, and the nature of the firearm (a sawed-off shotgun stored with ammunition).

The appellant was convicted of firearm and drug offences arising from cross-border smuggling trips where she transported drugs to the U.S. and returned with guns.

She appealed her convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on wilful blindness and allowing cross-examination on her knowledge of gun crime in Toronto.

She also appealed her seven-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the wilful blindness instruction and no unfairness in the cross-examination.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit and within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for a single act of sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old by a person in a position of trust.

The Court of Appeal noted that the upper end of the range for this type of offence is more than five years.

The court concluded that while the sentence imposed was high, it was not manifestly unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing his guilty plea was invalid due to a mental disorder and equivocation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made the necessary inquiries to ensure the plea was informed and voluntary.

Fresh evidence, including medical records without expert interpretation, did not demonstrate the plea was involuntary or unequivocal.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a summary conviction appeal court decision, arguing the trial judge committed a Harper error by failing to consider evidence suggesting his daughter was present during the alleged offences.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding no compelling basis to conclude the daughter was present, as both the appellant and the complainant agreed she was not.

The court held that the trial judge's failure to review every piece of evidence pointing to a different conclusion did not constitute a reversible error.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a maximum secure facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably applied the criteria in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

The Board was entitled to rely on the appellant's sexually violent history, stalking history, institutional offences, and psychopathy to conclude that maximum security was the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The appellant appealed his 15-year sentence for robbery, aggravated assault, and firearms offences, arguing unjustifiable disparity with his co-accused's 11-year sentence and that his firearms sentences should have been concurrent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disparity fully justified by the appellant's extensive criminal record, age, and parole status at the time of the offences.

The court also held that the sentencing judge was entitled to impose consecutive sentences for the firearms offences to reflect the invasion of different legally protected interests.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder following the death of his wife, which the Crown alleged was a staged suicide via drug overdose and blunt force trauma.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on after-the-fact conduct and the absence of proven motive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury instructions were adequate and properly summarized the defence's position.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of possession of child pornography based on written stories depicting sexual activity between adults and children.

The court held that written material may advocate or counsel sexual activity with children implicitly as well as explicitly under the governing interpretation of s. 163.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge erred in law by focusing on the absence of overt exhortation and by failing to assess whether the stories' combined messages — that children want and enjoy sex with adults, and that trusted adults routinely engage in it because it is good for children — implicitly conveyed that sex with children can and should be pursued.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.