Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant was convicted of forgery-related offences and tax fraud arising from his operation of a fake identification business and failure to report income.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by preventing him from reopening his case, improperly finding him vicariously liable as a 'directing mind', misapplying the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule, relying on inadmissible affidavits, unevenly scrutinizing evidence, reversing the burden of proof for tax fraud, and dismissing a stay application for pre-charge delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no legal errors, properly assessed the evidence, and correctly concluded that the appellant directly controlled the illegal business and deliberately evaded taxes.

The appellant appealed his convictions for drug and firearms offences, as well as his global sentence of 660 days.

He argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his testimony that the drugs were left by party attendees and that he received inadequate assistance as a self-represented litigant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these grounds, finding the trial judge's conclusions well-supported by the evidence.

However, based on a Crown concession, the court allowed the appeal on one firearms count and entered an acquittal.

The sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was charged with several criminal offences.

The Ontario Securities Commission obtained a production order for the appellant's accounting and taxation files.

The appellant claimed solicitor-client and litigation privilege over the documents, which the application judge largely rejected.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Crown brought a motion to quash the appeal on the basis that the matter was criminal and no appeal route existed under the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the production order was directed at the enforcement of a criminal order, and quashed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed his conviction and six-month sentence for sexual assault.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting the legally blind complainant's video recorded statement as her evidence-in-chief under s. 715.2 of the Criminal Code, and in excluding evidence of prior sexual history under s. 276.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or application of the W.(D.) principles, and upheld the sentence and mandatory sex offender registry order.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial dates were lost due to a lack of available judges, which the Crown argued was an 'exceptional circumstance' caused by two judges attending a compulsory education program and a third judge being unexpectedly ill.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that judicial education is a foreseeable systemic issue, not an exceptional circumstance.

Furthermore, the Crown failed to prove that the unexpected illness of one judge caused the delay in this specific case, as other priority matters were also not reached.

The appellant, convicted of criminal harassment, sought leave to appeal from a Superior Court of Justice decision dismissing his summary conviction appeal.

He also brought a fresh evidence application involving translated documents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fresh evidence application and denied leave to appeal, finding no issue significant to the administration of justice and no merit to the proposed appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in cannabis, arguing the verdict was unreasonable as the evidence only supported personal use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the wiretap evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion.

However, the Court noted that the appellant's criminal record incorrectly reflected a Schedule I offence instead of a Schedule II offence.

The Court ordered that the record be corrected as soon as possible.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application to quash his committal for trial on charges of trafficking in cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The charges arose from an undercover police operation where pre-marked buy money was used, and a subsequent search warrant executed at the appellant's residence yielded cocaine and drug paraphernalia.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could return guilty verdicts based on the evidence.

The applicant sought an order under s. 680 of the Criminal Code directing a panel of the Court of Appeal to review a decision denying him bail pending trial on a charge of second-degree murder.

The bail judge had denied release primarily on the tertiary ground, finding the Crown's case strong based on video and eyewitness evidence.

The motion judge found it arguable that the bail judge committed a material error of law or fact in assessing the strength of the Crown's case without making specific findings of fact or identifying a specific basis for party liability.

The application was granted, and a review by a panel was ordered.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible (NCR) for offences committed in 2000 and 2007, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his conditional discharge and reinstated a condition prohibiting cannabis use.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable because it failed to conduct an even-handed analysis of the evidence, pathologized trivial conduct, and ignored significant evidence of the appellant's progress, medication compliance, and abstinence from other illicit drugs.

The appeal was allowed and an absolute discharge was ordered.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder, sought an order under s. 680(1) of the Criminal Code directing a panel of the Court of Appeal to review a single judge's decision denying him bail pending appeal.

The motion judge evaluated the public interest criterion under s. 679(3)(c), focusing on public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court found no arguable material errors in the bail judge's conclusion that the applicant's involvement in high-level drug trafficking and access to a dangerous weapon posed significant public safety concerns.

Furthermore, the grounds of appeal, including challenges to eyewitness instructions and a Charter claim regarding a vehicle's infotainment system, were deemed relatively weak.

The application for review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence following guilty pleas to conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, unlawful confinement, and committing an offence for a criminal organization.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence, arguing his pleas were uninformed because he did not instruct his counsel to agree to the joint sentencing submission.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove his plea was uninformed, as circumstantial evidence and his own cross-examination contradicted his claims.

The sentence appeal was allowed on consent solely to strike the victim fine surcharge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing DNA and witness evidence, and alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The Crown cross-appealed the suspended sentence and two years' probation, arguing a custodial sentence was required.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and concluding that trial counsel's tactical decisions did not cause a miscarriage of justice.

The Court also dismissed the Crown's sentence appeal, holding that while the suspended sentence was exceptionally lenient, it was not demonstrably unfit given the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and strong community support.

The respondent pleaded guilty to failing to provide the necessaries of life after her nine-year-old daughter, who had cerebral palsy, died from malnutrition and dehydration.

The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of one day in jail and three years of probation, after crediting the respondent with 17 months of pre-disposition custody.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge erred by failing to prioritize denunciation and deterrence as required by section 718.01 of the Criminal Code, improperly considering the failures of the Children's Aid Society as a mitigating factor, and imposing a demonstrably unfit sentence.

The Court substituted a sentence of three years in a penitentiary, but stayed the execution of the remaining 19 months of custody.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for uttering a death threat, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a secure forensic unit.

The appellant argued the Board failed to properly assess the likelihood and seriousness of potential future harm under the Winko test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably relied on expert evidence detailing the appellant's recent clinical deterioration, substance abuse, and threatening behaviour to conclude he remained a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his detention at a forensic psychiatric facility.

He argued the Board's finding that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and that the Board breached its duty to inquire into his allegations of staff interference.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that the appellant's complaints lacked the air of reality necessary to trigger the Board's duty to inquire.

The appellant employer was convicted on appeal of an offence under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a workplace fatality.

Before sentencing, the appellant brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, which the appeal judge summarily dismissed.

The Court of Appeal held that while the appeal judge had jurisdiction to hear the Charter application, he did not err in exercising his discretion to summarily dismiss it, as constitutional issues should only be raised for the first time on appeal in exceptional circumstances where there is no prejudice to the parties.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's order requiring it to pay over $580,000 in costs to the respondents following a mistrial caused by the late disclosure of cellphone records.

The trial judge found the Crown's negligence violated s. 7 of the Charter and awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale using the civil costs regime.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the costs order, holding that costs against the Crown in criminal proceedings are only appropriate where there is a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable standards, which was not present here.

The Court also held that the trial judge erred in importing the civil costs regime into the criminal context.

The appellant appealed her convictions for fraud and uttering, as well as her sentence, following a trial before a judge sitting without a jury.

She argued that the trial judge erred in his findings of fact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or misapprehension of evidence in the trial judge's credibility assessments.

The sentence appeal seeking to delete the probation order was also dismissed, with the court noting the appellant failed to apply to the sentencing judge under s. 732.2(3) of the Criminal Code for such relief.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, which was largely based on a confession obtained during a 'Mr. Big' undercover operation.

During the retrial, the Crown introduced highly prejudicial bad character evidence regarding a separate, severed murder charge.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's charge to the jury was deficient, particularly regarding motive and confirmatory evidence, and failed to present the defence's position fairly.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.