Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to import cocaine into Canada.

He argued that the trial judge erred in finding that his discussions with co-conspirators amounted to a concluded agreement, and that the trial judge misapplied the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant had agreed to join the conspiracy to import cocaine by airplane.

The court also held that the trial judge properly applied the Carter framework and did not improperly rely on hearsay evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of a firearm, arguing the trial judge erred by not excluding the firearm evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding a s. 8 breach from a facially invalid search warrant.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the Grant framework, noting the breach was deemed the product of sloppiness rather than bad faith.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court deferring to the trial judge's balancing of the factors.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder of his intimate partner, arguing he lacked the capacity to form the requisite intent due to a cocaine-induced psychosis.

The trial judge rejected the defence psychiatric expert's opinion, finding it lacked objectivity and was inconsistent with the appellant's purposeful actions before, during, and after the shooting.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the trial judge's assessment of the expert evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent, a paralegal with public interest standing, challenged the constitutionality of provisions of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act that confer police powers on OSPCA inspectors and agents.

The application judge struck down sections 11, 12, and 12.1 on the ground that they violated section 7 of the Charter by depriving individuals of liberty and security of the person without accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The application judge recognized a novel principle of fundamental justice requiring law enforcement bodies to be subject to reasonable standards of transparency and accountability.

The Attorney General appealed, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in finding that section 7 was engaged and in recognizing the proposed novel principle of fundamental justice.

The appellant appealed from a judgment denying certiorari to quash an order committing him to trial on charges of first-degree murder and participating in a criminal organization.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's refusal to grant certiorari.

The preliminary inquiry judge properly considered the evidence and correctly determined that the Crown had met the minimal threshold required to justify committal.

The reviewing court's task was solely to consider whether there was any evidence upon which the committing justice could form an opinion that the evidence was sufficient to put the accused on trial.

The appellant appealed her three-year sentence (less six months pre-sentence custody credit) imposed following a guilty plea to trafficking in firearms.

The appellant challenged the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 99(2)(a) of the Criminal Code as contrary to s. 12 of the Charter on the basis that it was overly broad and could be grossly disproportionate in certain circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it unnecessary to address the constitutional argument as the three-year sentence was fit and appropriate even without the mandatory minimum, given the serious aggravating factors present.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter in the death of a fellow inmate at the Don Jail.

The Crown's case was that the appellant was part of a group that assaulted the deceased.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's jury instructions on post-offence conduct and the failure to adequately relate evidence to the mens rea element of manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's instructions were proper and that the evidence was fairly presented to the jury.

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder and first degree murder following a street altercation in Barrie, Ontario in which two members of an opposing group were stabbed.

The appellant appealed on four grounds: (1) erroneous jury instructions on after-the-fact conduct; (2) one-sided jury charge on planning and deliberation; (3) insufficient instructions on intent for murder; and (4) failure to redact references to the appellant being bipolar.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all counts but substituted a conviction for second degree murder for the first degree murder conviction, finding the trial judge's charge on planning and deliberation was heavily weighted toward inculpatory evidence and omitted significant exculpatory evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated sexual assault and forcible confinement.

During and after the trial, the jury foreperson participated in a radio broadcast where he made derogatory and homophobic comments about the trial participants and discussed the case.

The majority of the Court of Appeal found that the juror's conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias, necessitating a new trial.

The concurring judge found no reasonable apprehension of bias but agreed a new trial was required because the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury against using evidence from one count to support findings on other counts.

The applicant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.

His summary conviction appeal was dismissed as abandoned after he failed to perfect it, and a subsequent application to re-open the appeal was denied.

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and to introduce fresh evidence regarding a surveillance video and a deportation order resulting from his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found it had jurisdiction under s. 839 of the Criminal Code, admitted the fresh evidence regarding the deportation order, and allowed the appeal in part, permitting the applicant to re-open his summary conviction appeal as it relates to sentence only.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and related offences, as well as his sentence of 13.7 years.

He argued the trial judge erred by prohibiting cross-examination of the complainant regarding a conflict in her evidence about recent sexual activity, and by granting pre-trial custody credit at a 1:1 ratio and apportioning only half of it to the current charges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the appellant failed to pursue the mandatory application process under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge's decisions on pre-trial custody credit and apportionment were discretionary and revealed no error in principle.

The appellant was convicted of firearms and drug offences following a warranted search of his apartment.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant was insufficient and relied on careless drafting.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the ITO, when read as a whole, provided reasonable grounds to believe the evidence sought would be found in the apartment.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, upholding the 22-month custodial sentence as fit.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery for his role in a home invasion and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

He appealed his sentence and introduced fresh evidence demonstrating significant rehabilitation during the five years he spent on bail pending appeal, including maintaining employment, marrying, and volunteering.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence and held that returning the appellant to custody would sacrifice his rehabilitation for general deterrence.

The custodial portion of the sentence was reduced to time served.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 months for break and enter, arguing the trial judge should have imposed consecutive sentences of less than six months each to preserve his right to appeal a removal order under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was aware of the immigration consequences and the sentence was reasonable given the severity of the offences and the appellant's record.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 5 years (less pre-trial custody credit) for aggravated assault and possession of a firearm without a license.

He argued the trial judge erred by considering his previous plan to kill his wife as an aggravating factor, given he had pled guilty to aggravated assault in exchange for the Crown dropping an attempted murder charge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, holding that the prior plan was a valid aggravating factor in this serious domestic assault involving a loaded rifle.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing its certiorari application.

The application sought to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge the respondent on a charge of manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no jurisdictional error and agreeing that a reasonable jury properly instructed could not draw a reasonable inference that the respondent committed the offence.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for a sexual assault conviction where the Crown had proceeded by indictment.

The Court of Appeal held that the conditional sentence was illegal under section 742.1 of the Criminal Code and set it aside.

However, given the respondent's positive rehabilitative steps, time spent on bail, and time served under house arrest, the Court substituted a sentence of time served.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing it was inconsistent with the parity principle compared to his co-accused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge had a basis to conclude the appellant's culpability was greater, as his identification was found in a bag containing weapons, drugs, and cash.

The appellants appealed their convictions.

The Court of Appeal found that the verdict was not unreasonable, as there was direct evidence from the complainant identifying one of the appellants, which was confirmed by independent evidence.

However, the Crown conceded that the appeal must be allowed based on the challenge for cause procedure.

The appeals were allowed, the convictions quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant brought an application to reopen his appeal from a 1999 sentence.

The appellant did not appear at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to reopen the appeal.