Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellants were charged with unlawfully damaging and/or destroying protected rattlesnake habitat contrary to the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

They brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay, which was dismissed by the trial judge.

The appellants then sought certiorari and s. 24(1) Charter relief in Superior Court, arguing the trial judge failed to characterize certain disclosure as "obviously relevant" and failed to attribute all delay to the Crown.

The Superior Court dismissed both applications.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no jurisdictional error and rejecting the argument that the degree of relevance of outstanding disclosure alleviates the defence's obligation to act diligently.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the sentence imposed.

The conviction appeal raised two grounds: first, that the trial judge failed to address frailties in the complainant's evidence and material inconsistencies, and second, that the trial judge erred in her section 11(b) Charter analysis regarding defence delay.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's credibility assessment or her apportionment of delay.

The appellant received a two-year custodial sentence for a serious sexual assault of a 13-year-old child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, finding the sentence fit and appropriate.

The appellant appealed a custodial sentence of two years less a day imposed for aggravated assault.

The assault arose from a parking lot altercation where the appellant stabbed the victim with a screwdriver, causing life-threatening injuries to the chest.

The appellant sought to vary the sentence to a conditional sentence based on fresh evidence regarding his aggressive bladder cancer diagnosis and ongoing medical treatment requirements.

The sentencing judge had specifically crafted the custodial sentence to ensure access to adequate healthcare facilities.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's medical needs were being adequately addressed within the correctional facility and through arrangements with local health facilities, and that the sentencing judge had not erred in principle or imposed a demonstrably unfit sentence.

The applicant sought release pending appeal from convictions for two counts of indecent assault against the daughters of his then-partner, committed approximately 50 years ago when the victims were approximately 9 and 13 years old.

The applicant received a conditional sentence.

The Crown opposed the release application, arguing the applicant failed to establish that his grounds of appeal were not frivolous and that immediate enforcement was necessary to maintain public confidence given the seriousness of the offences.

The motion judge granted the application for release, finding that the applicant's ground of appeal regarding the trial judge's admission of extraneous bad character evidence clearly surpassed the "not frivolous" criterion and that the reviewability interest outweighed the immediate enforceability interest.

The appellant, a lawyer, was convicted of criminal harassment, extortion, and two counts of uttering threats arising from his conduct toward a former client and a friend.

He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

He applied for bail pending appeal under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding that while the appeal was not frivolous, the appellant failed to meet the public interest component of the bail test on both public safety and public confidence grounds.

The appellant's paranoid and grandiose testimony at trial, combined with the gravity of the offences and the weakness of the appeal, supported detention.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder on the sole ground that the trial judge erred in dismissing a mistrial application.

The Crown had improperly elicited inadmissible hearsay evidence regarding the appellant's connection to a residential address and inadmissible opinion evidence identifying the appellant in surveillance video from that address.

The trial judge provided a timely and forceful mid-trial corrective instruction and reinforced it in the final charge to the jury.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the mistrial application, finding that the corrective instructions were adequate to remedy any prejudice and that a mistrial was not necessary.

The court emphasized that mistrial is a remedy of last resort and that where corrective instructions can safely repair a compromised trial, they should be employed.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 42 months imprisonment (less 6 months Downes credit and 12 days presentence custody credit) imposed for possession of 450 grams of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The appellant alleged the trial judge made various errors in principle rendering the sentence unfit.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was entirely fit and the Downes credit fell within the broad range of discretion afforded to the trial judge.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the Crown's appeal from a conditional sentence imposed for sexual assault involving non-consensual condom removal.

The majority allowed the appeal, finding the sentence manifestly unfit and inconsistent with established sentencing ranges for penetrative sexual assault.

The majority substituted a three-year penitentiary sentence, emphasizing the gravity of the offence, the respondent’s moral culpability, and the severe harm to the victim.

The dissent would have deferred to the sentencing judge and corrected only the technical error in the conditional sentence’s length.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Heeralall Ramdeo from convictions for kidnapping, use of an imitation firearm to commit an assault, and possession of an imitation firearm for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s reliance on the evidence of the complainant, a Vetrovec witness, nor in the application of the W.(D.) standard or the assessment of credibility.

The court held that the trial judge properly scrutinized the evidence, found sufficient confirmatory evidence, and gave detailed reasons for his findings.

The appellant, Amy Smith Cox, appealed a detention order of the Ontario Review Board that found she continued to pose a significant threat of serious harm to the public and imposed a no-contact provision with her father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the significant threat finding but allowed the appeal in part regarding the no-contact provision, varying it to permit contact with her father at the discretion of the treatment team.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the conviction appeals of Khalid Yousuf and Adrian Myles Puentes-Reed, who were convicted of multiple offences related to drug trafficking, proceeds of crime, and possession of firearms after being found in a "safe house" in Thunder Bay.

The court found that the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence or err in law, and that the verdicts were reasonable based on the circumstantial and direct evidence connecting both appellants to the contraband and the operation of the safe house.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed for uttering threats and assault with a weapon after the sentencing judge rejected a joint sentencing submission.

The respondent Crown conceded that the appeal should be allowed because the joint submission was within or close to the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred in departing from the joint submission, which did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was substituted with the recommended 12-month sentence followed by 18 months of probation.

The appellant, Shawn Frederick Prindle, appealed his sentence for multiple convictions including assault, assault with a weapon, theft, mischief to property, and breach of recognizance.

He argued that the sentencing judge erred by not granting credit for time spent under strict bail conditions (Downes credit) and by rejecting a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the global sentence to 365 days’ imprisonment (with 21 days presentence custody deducted), but declined to substitute a conditional sentence, finding a custodial sentence was still required given the gravity and context of the offences.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Arsenije Lojovic’s conviction appeal but allowed his sentence appeal, reducing his sentence from 10 years to 8 years (less pre-trial custody).

The court found that the trial judge erred by treating Lojovic’s bipolar disorder as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.

The decision reviews the proper approach to NCR (not criminally responsible) assessments and the role of mental illness in sentencing, emphasizing that mental health conditions can reduce moral blameworthiness and the weight of deterrence and denunciation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Ernest Clayton’s appeal from a Review Board disposition finding him unfit and “permanently unfit” to stand trial.

The court held that the Board failed to apply the fitness test contextually, as required by law, and did not consider relevant evidence about the simplicity of the charges and Clayton’s ability to understand and respond to them.

The Board’s finding of permanent unfitness was also unsupported by sufficient reasons.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted Board for a new determination of fitness.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of Barrington Grant’s conviction for possession of a loaded firearm.

The appellant had challenged the admissibility of evidence obtained under a warrant, but his application was dismissed at trial.

After his conviction, related proceedings involving the same information to obtain (ITO) resulted in stays due to disclosure issues.

The Crown conceded the appeal in light of these developments and a prior Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Khamo, which quashed a conviction based on the same evidence.

The court set aside the conviction, ordered a new trial, and entered a stay of proceedings.

The appellant, P.R., appealed his convictions for sexually assaulting two 15-year-old complainants.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not misapprehend the appellant’s evidence regarding his sexual preferences or rely on unsupported generalizations or stereotypes.

The trial judge’s findings were grounded in the evidence, and the reasons were read in context and as a whole.

The appellant, K.M., appealed convictions for sexual assault and for choking the complainant to render her incapable of resisting.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge’s reasons were not ideal, they were sufficient when read contextually.

The trial judge’s credibility findings and rejection of the defence theory of fabrication were adequately explained, and the application of the W.(D.) framework was proper.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on charges of causing death while driving with excess blood-drug concentration (THC) and dangerous driving causing death, following a fatal collision with a horse and buggy.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent on the basis that the Crown failed to prove a causal nexus between the respondent's impairment and the collision, and failed to establish a marked departure from the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 320.14(3) of the Criminal Code does not require proof that the impairment itself caused the death, only that the accused caused the death while committing the predicate offence.

The Court also found the trial judge erred in applying the modified objective standard for dangerous driving.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of assault and sexual assault against his former romantic partner and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by admitting a screenshot of a text message exchange without independent authentication and by failing to give adequate limiting instructions to the jury regarding its reliability.

The appellant also appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to Gladue and Morris factors relating to his Black and Indigenous ancestry.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the complainant's testimony was sufficient to authenticate the screenshot and the jury instructions were adequate.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge made no error in principle in weighing the mitigating factors against the gravity of the offences.