Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

This is an appeal from convictions for drug and firearm offences and the imposed sentence.

The appellant challenged the validity of search warrants, the warrantless "pinging" of his cell phone, and the calculation of pre-trial custody credit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on the warrants and the admissibility of evidence, including the "judge-shopping" issue.

The sentence appeal was allowed to grant additional pre-trial custody credit.

The appellant appealed his conviction for attempted murder and life sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The victim was shot three times at close range at a busy Toronto intersection after exiting a TTC bus, resulting in permanent paralysis.

The appellant challenged the conviction on the basis of eyewitness identification concerns, arguing the trial judge failed to exercise appropriate caution regarding the reliability of the victim's identification.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh surveillance video evidence and argued the sentence was demonstrably unfit given his age at the time of the offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed the reliability of the identification evidence and that the life sentence was justified given the serious nature of the unprovoked attempted murder committed with a firearm in a public place.

The appellant was convicted by jury of aggravated assault and three firearm offences arising from an incident at an after-hours restaurant where the appellant allegedly fired a gun twice inside the establishment and then shot the victim in the stomach and hand upon exit.

The central issue at trial was identification.

Three witnesses recanted prior statements to police in which they had identified the appellant, but the trial judge admitted the prior statements as hearsay evidence based on procedural reliability.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the verdict was not unreasonable and the trial judge properly instructed the jury on identification evidence and post-offence conduct.

The appellant's sentence of 12 years global (8 years for aggravated assault, 4 years concurrent for careless use of firearm, 4 years consecutive for pointing firearm, 4 years concurrent for possession of weapon, less 32 months pre-sentence custody credit) was upheld as fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and his sentence of ten years' imprisonment.

The conviction appeal raised two grounds: (1) that the conviction was unreasonable given the inconsistency with a co-accused's acquittal, and (2) that the trial judge erred in dismissing a Charter s. 11(b) application regarding trial delay.

The Court of Appeal rejected both grounds.

The trial judge's findings were reasonable, as the co-accused testified and was believed while the appellant's witness was rejected as untruthful.

The trial delay of 27 months fell within the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The sentence of ten years was upheld as fit given the large quantity of cocaine involved and the appellant's prior conviction for the same offence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life and pointing a firearm, as well as his sentence of 7 years 4 months imprisonment.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's failure to provide a limiting instruction regarding the jury's use of evidence that the appellant possessed a handgun at the time of arrest, three days after the shooting.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding that the evidence of the handgun was highly relevant as it could connect the appellant to the shooting and corroborate witness testimony, and that there was no realistic possibility the jury engaged in improper propensity reasoning.

Appeal from convictions for first degree murder, aggravated assault, and discharging a prohibited firearm with intent to wound.

The sole ground of appeal concerned the trial judge's W.(D.) instructions to the jury, specifically the use of expanded language referring to "other defence evidence" or "evidence relied on by the defence" in the first and second stages of the instruction.

The appellant argued this formulation erroneously directed the jury to consider supporting evidence when assessing the appellant's credibility and deflected the jury from considering all evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that although the expanded instruction was not ideal, it did not constitute reversible error when read in the context of the entire charge, which repeatedly emphasized the Crown's burden of proof and the jury's obligation to consider all evidence.

The appellant was convicted of 28 counts of fraud over $5,000 in connection with a Ponzi scheme involving three accused persons and losses exceeding $2,000,000.

He appealed his convictions and sentence on grounds of delay contrary to s. 11(b) of the Charter and alleged errors in the trial judge's jury instructions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal found that while the total delay of 59½ months exceeded the presumptive ceiling under the Jordan framework, it was justified by defence delay, discrete events (including the co-accused's illness), case complexity, and the transitional exceptional circumstance based on the parties' reasonable reliance on the Morin framework.

The jury instructions were found to be fair and balanced when reviewed as a whole.

The appellant was convicted by two separate juries of two murders committed in January 2008.

On appeal, the appellant challenged four pre-trial evidentiary rulings: (1) the admissibility of his statements to police on April 15 and 16, 2008; (2) the admissibility of shotgun shells found during a lawful traffic stop on January 15, 2008; (3) the admissibility of a statement made on February 19, 2008 regarding ammunition; and (4) the admissibility of bad character evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld all evidentiary rulings and dismissed the appeals.

The respondent pleaded guilty to making child pornography for the purpose of publication.

The trial judge found that the respondent's rights under ss. 7 and 9 of the Charter were breached due to mistreatment in custody and a delayed bail hearing.

Invoking s. 24(1) of the Charter, the trial judge imposed a 21-month conditional sentence, overriding the one-year mandatory minimum sentence and the statutory prohibition on conditional sentences for this offence.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in finding the Charter breaches and in using s. 24(1) to impose a sentence outside statutory limits.

A 21-month prison sentence was substituted but stayed as the respondent had already served the conditional sentence.

The self-represented appellant, who is subject to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board, brought a motion to review a single judge's order refusing his request to adjourn his appeal hearing.

The appellant argued the single judge misapprehended facts and considered irrelevant factors, and claimed he could not prepare his factum due to poisonous gas being injected into his condominium.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no basis to interfere with the single judge's decision.

The court noted the statutory obligation to hear such appeals as soon as practicable and that the appellant was not required to file a factum.

The appellants were convicted of first and second degree murder following a home invasion and shooting.

On appeal, they raised several issues regarding the trial judge's instructions to the jury, including late alibi adverse inference instructions, the Crown's theory of concocted alibis, the admission of discreditable conduct evidence, the lack of a Vetrovec warning for a key witness, and the instructions on voice and eyewitness identification.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the trial judge's rulings or jury instructions and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the jury charge was misleading regarding credibility findings across counts, the consent instructions should have been tailored, and the trial judge erred in findings of fact for sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury instructions were adequate and standard.

The court also granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the appeal, holding the trial judge's findings of fact were well explained and open to him.

The appellant appealed her effective five-year sentence for impaired driving causing death and impaired driving causing bodily harm.

She argued the sentencing judge overemphasized deterrence and failed to give sufficient weight to her aboriginal background and rehabilitation efforts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge carefully considered her background but appropriately weighed serious aggravating factors, including her prior record, high blood alcohol level, and lack of accepted responsibility.

The sentence was found to be fit.

The appellant, who had nine prior convictions for impaired driving, was sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment for his tenth conviction.

The sentencing judge initially failed to specify whether the sentence was concurrent or consecutive to the three and a half year sentence the appellant was already serving.

After the warrant of committal was signed, the judge clarified that the sentence was consecutive.

On appeal, the appellant argued the judge was functus officio and that the consecutive sentence violated the totality principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the judge had jurisdiction to clarify her manifest intention without reconsidering the sentence, and that the consecutive sentence was fit given the paramount need to protect the public from a repeat offender.

The appellant appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board detaining him in a minimum secure unit.

He argued the Board erred by admitting a police summary of his prior criminal activity and that the disposition was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board has wide latitude to receive hearsay evidence and did not rely heavily on the summary.

The Court also held the disposition was reasonable, supported by the evidence of the treating psychiatrist, and represented the least onerous restriction consistent with public protection.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in finding no section 8 Charter violation regarding the search of his motor vehicle and in failing to exclude the discovered handgun under section 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the search was a lawful search incident to arrest.

Furthermore, applying the Collins factors, the Court agreed that the admission of the non-conscriptive evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the reduced expectation of privacy in a vehicle and the seriousness of the firearms offences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence relating to the complainant's injuries, after the fact conduct, and alleged prior employment at the complainant's convenience store.

The Crown cross-appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no misapprehension of evidence, noting the trial judge's analysis was comprehensive and supported by the record.

Both the appeal against conviction and the duelling sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for drug trafficking, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the identification evidence.

The appellant was identified as the driver of a vehicle used in a drug transaction based largely on in-dock identification and a single photograph that was subsequently lost by police.

The trial judge also accepted that the vehicle was used in the transaction despite evidence from its registered owner that it had not been loaned out.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's reasons revealed misapprehensions of the evidence, particularly regarding the strength and timing of the identification, which rendered the verdict unsustainable.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction, seeking Charter relief.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for Charter relief on any sensible version of the facts.

The appellant was convicted of importing narcotics after arriving at Pearson International Airport with cannabis resin strapped to her body.

She appealed her conviction and 18-month conditional sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting her defence of duress, failing to find she knew the packs contained narcotics, and illegally modifying her conditional sentence conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed her credibility regarding the duress defence, the inference of knowledge was available on the evidence, and the condition to remain in Ontario was permitted under s. 742.3(2)(f) of the Criminal Code.