Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault and his 40-month sentence.

He was self-represented at trial and argued that the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge failed to provide adequate assistance, rendering the trial unfair.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence overwhelming and that the trial judge provided extensive assistance to the self-represented appellant.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as the 40-month sentence fell within the appropriate range for aggravated assault given the appellant's criminal record.

The appellant was convicted of production of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of the proceeds of crime following a trial before a Superior Court judge sitting without a jury.

He was sentenced to five years imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the issuance of telewarrants used to search two properties, the trial judge's refusal to permit cross-examination of the ITO affiant, the validity of the search warrants, and the reasonableness of the verdict.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal sentence, arguing the trial judge misstated the defence position on bail credit and failed to consider rehabilitative prospects and the principle of restraint.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction and, while granting leave to appeal sentence, dismissed the appeal from sentence.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of fraud over $5,000 and sentenced to 5.5 years in custody with a restitution order of $799,600.

On appeal, the appellant raised three grounds challenging the custodial term and one ground challenging the restitution amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor demonstrably unfit, that mental illness was not established as a mitigating factor at the time of the offences, that the remand into custody was justified despite procedural concerns, and that the full restitution order was appropriate given the nature of the fraud and the paramount consideration of victims' claims.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder for arson and failure to comply with a probation order.

The Board ordered continued detention on the general forensic unit of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, alternatively a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's refusal of an absolute discharge but found the Board's reasoning for refusing a conditional discharge was unreasonable and remitted the matter for reconsideration of whether a conditional discharge was appropriate.

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder in the shooting death of Joel Waldron.

The Crown could not prove which appellant was the shooter but argued both were guilty as one was the shooter and the other aided or abetted the killing.

The appellants appealed on grounds that the trial judge's charge to the jury was deficient in relating evidence to the elements of aiding and abetting and planning and deliberation.

The Court of Appeal found the jury charge was factually unbalanced and failed to properly relate evidence to the necessary legal elements, particularly regarding aiding and abetting.

While the court did not find the verdict unreasonable, it quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial due to the deficiencies in the charge.

The appellants were convicted by jury of importing 7.86 kilograms of cocaine into Canada from Jamaica and each received sentences of 6.5 years imprisonment.

Potts appealed both conviction and sentence; Robinson appealed sentence only.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's jury charge on the mental element of importing, limiting instructions on co-accused statements, right to silence, expert evidence, or character evidence.

The sentencing appeals were also dismissed as the sentences were fit and within the appropriate range for this offence.

An appeal from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 24, 2017.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for robbery in 2010, challenged the Board's decision to impose a detention disposition rather than a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued that a conditional discharge with treatment conditions could manage his risk as effectively as detention.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition, finding that the Board correctly applied the legal test and that its conclusion was reasonable given the appellant's recent deterioration, non-compliance with conditions, medication non-adherence, and the limitations of the Mental Health Act in managing his risk.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault by Justice G. King of the Superior Court of Justice on May 4, 2015.

On appeal, the Crown conceded that the trial judge committed reversible error in his application of the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The Court of Appeal agreed with this concession and found reversible error.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered on the sexual assault charge.

The appellant's application to introduce fresh evidence regarding ineffective assistance of counsel was dismissed as moot.

The appellant appealed his sentence of eight years imprisonment for sexually assaulting his girlfriend's daughter over a period of approximately one year beginning when the victim was 12 years old.

The appellant sought leave to appeal and argued that the sentencing judge erred by failing to adequately consider his guilty plea, rehabilitative potential, and Aboriginal background under the Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge erred in requiring a causal connection between the appellant's Aboriginal background and the offences, the sentence remained fit given the gravity of the crimes and their devastating impact on the victim.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 20, 2016.

The hospital had recommended a conditional discharge, but the Board imposed a detention order with conditions.

The appellant challenged the Board's decision on multiple grounds, including the refusal to order a conditional discharge and the failure to order a second opinion or independent assessment in light of a potential treatment impasse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's reasoning regarding the appellant's non-compliance with essential drug treatment and the requirement for hospital-approved residence.

The appellant applied to rescind an order dismissing his appeal of a dangerous driving conviction as abandoned, and to set aside his guilty plea on the basis that he was misinformed by trial counsel regarding the length of his licence suspension.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, noting that the guilty plea was part of a broader plea bargain involving other charges.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the appellant applying to set aside all of his convictions, as the interests of justice require a full consideration of the entire plea bargain.

The appellant pleaded guilty to break, enter and theft, and attempted break and enter, committed while on parole.

He was sentenced to five years and three years concurrent imprisonment.

He appealed the sentences, arguing they were beyond the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentences were not unfit given the appellant's significant criminal record for similar offences, previous penitentiary sentences, and the fact that he broke into an occupied residential dwelling.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing that improper cross-examination, erroneous jury instructions regarding his criminal record, and limitations on cross-examining a Crown witness undermined his credibility and rendered the trial unfair.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged several errors by the trial judge and Crown counsel, including improper suggestions during cross-examination and incorrect instructions on the use of the appellant's criminal record.

However, the Court concluded that these errors did not affect the fairness of the trial or cause a miscarriage of justice, given the overwhelming Crown case and the appellant's incredible testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a particularly egregious fraud involving elderly victims.

The appellant, who was in a position of trust, deprived the victims of a substantial portion of their savings and refused to acknowledge the harm or propose a method for repayment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to impose a conditional sentence, as the principles of promoting responsibility and acknowledgment of harm would not be met.

The Crown appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice that overturned a summary conviction judge's ruling.

The summary conviction judge had held that he lacked jurisdiction to hear a freestanding application for costs based on alleged Charter breaches after the Crown withdrew the charges prior to arraignment and plea.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the summary conviction judge's ruling.

The Court held that absent abuse of process or flagrant impropriety by the Crown, the summary conviction court's jurisdiction ends when charges are withdrawn, and it cannot hold a freestanding hearing on costs.

The respondent's remedy lies in a civil action.

The elderly respondent was found not criminally responsible for killing his wife due to a delusional disorder.

The Ontario Review Board granted him an absolute discharge, with the majority concluding he did not pose a significant threat to public safety due to his physical frailty.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable because it relied on the respondent's physical presentation while failing to reconcile that assessment with medical evidence indicating he lacked insight, was poorly motivated to take medication, and posed a significant risk of violent re-offence.

The matter was remitted for an expedited re-hearing.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for breaching his probation.

The conviction appeal was not pressed in oral argument and was dismissed as there was ample evidence to support it.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the custodial portion had already been served and was moot.

The court found the sentence was not outside the range and there was no error in principle, noting the appellant breached his probation in a calculated and escalating manner by exposing the victim's personal information online.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity in 1981, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision refusing him an absolute discharge.

The Board had concluded he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to concerns about alcohol abuse and personality disorder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable as it was contrary to the evidence of his treatment team and unsupported by the record.

The court set aside the Board's order and granted the appellant an absolute discharge.

In this addendum to a previous decision, the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of pre-sentence custody credit, which had not been given by the trial judge.

The Crown conceded that the appellant was entitled to credit on a 2-for-1 basis for the ten weeks spent in pre-sentence custody.

The Court granted leave to appeal the sentence and reduced the appellant's seven-year sentence by twenty weeks.

The Crown appealed acquittals entered by a summary conviction appeal court on charges of impaired driving and driving over the legal limit.

The respondent had been stopped for erratic driving, admitted to being high on drugs, and gave an ambiguous response when advised of his right to counsel.

He subsequently failed a roadside screening device test and a breathalyzer test.

The Court of Appeal restored the trial judge's conviction on the over 80 charge, finding no breach of the respondent's right to counsel, and conditionally stayed the impaired driving charge under the Kienapple principle.