Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The Crown appealed an application judge's order staying drug trafficking proceedings against the respondents due to a breach of their right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling, and the Crown argued the delay was justified by the complexity of the multi-accused project investigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the Crown failed to meet its burden to show the case was sufficiently complex to justify the delay, particularly since the respondents were not participating in a lengthy pre-trial application that complicated other related prosecutions.

The applicant, Corey Hurren, brought a motion under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for state-funded counsel to assist with his sentence appeal, citing financial impecuniosity and mental health issues.

The Crown opposed, arguing the appeal lacked merit.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding that while the applicant met the financial eligibility, the proposed sentence appeal was devoid of arguable merit.

The judge concluded that the sentencing judge's findings regarding the political motivation of the offences were reasonable and that any error in considering lack of remorse as an aggravating factor did not impact the fitness of the six-year sentence, given the egregious nature of the crimes.

The court also determined that the appeal could be effectively argued without counsel.

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 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 was convicted of voyeurism after a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown's case was that during a camping trip, the appellant used his cellphone to record the complainant changing into her bathing suit.

The appellant denied intentionally recording.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's reasoning regarding the intentional nature of the recording, arguing the trial judge engaged in speculation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error.

The trial judge had made clear findings that the appellant's conduct—including plugging in the phone as a pretext, positioning it to record, and the series of steps required to activate the video function—demonstrated intentional conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 appellant brought a motion to reinstate his appeal from conviction and to seek an extension of time to seek leave to appeal his sentence.

The appellant's former counsel had filed a Notice of Abandonment of the appeal based on instructions allegedly from the appellant's brother, not the appellant himself.

The Crown did not oppose the motion.

The court found that the appellant intended to pursue his appeal and was unaware that a separate notice was required for leave to appeal sentence.

The conviction appeal was reinstated to include leave to appeal sentence, and the matter was adjourned for further proceedings.

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 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 appellant pleaded guilty to assault and breach of probation and was sentenced to 183 days in custody based on a joint submission.

He subsequently discovered that this sentence triggered potential inadmissibility as a permanent resident.

He appealed the sentence based on fresh evidence regarding the immigration consequences.

The Crown conceded that a sentence of six months less a day would have been fit and that the fresh evidence should be admitted.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to six months less a day to obviate the unforeseen immigration consequences.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for minor assaults and detained at a minimum forensic unit.

Despite his ongoing marijuana use, he had no history of aggression while detained.

The Ontario Review Board ordered his transfer to a medium security unit to restrict his access to drugs and help him develop insight.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the transfer unreasonable because it was more restrictive of his liberty and there was no evidence linking his marijuana use to a risk to public safety while detained.

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 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 intervener, a media outlet, brought a motion seeking limited access to a sealed affidavit to determine whether to challenge the sealing order.

The Crown opposed the motion, stating the affidavit contained confidential information pertaining to an ongoing criminal investigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the risk of compromising the ongoing investigation outweighed the public's right to know, especially given that the sealing order was temporary and set to expire in three months.