Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant challenged multiple convictions as unreasonable, legally flawed, and affected by ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court found the evidentiary record supported the trial findings, identified no legal error, and held no miscarriage of justice was shown.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, convicted of fraud, brought two motions related to his appeal: one for document production (dismissed as redundant) and another to appoint a special commissioner under s. 683(1)(e) of the Criminal Code to inquire into alleged email deletion by police and alteration of trial transcripts, seeking fresh evidence for a stay of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both motions, finding no credible evidence to support the allegations of obstruction of justice or abuse of process, and that the proposed inquiry would not reasonably lead to admissible fresh evidence under the Shulman test.

The appellant, J.G., appealed verdicts of not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder, entered in 2005 when he was 16.

The appeal, consented to by the Crown, was based on fresh evidence indicating the appellant, who has significant intellectual disabilities, did not understand the consequences of an NCR verdict at the time.

The Court of Appeal found the process leading to the NCR findings unfair and a miscarriage of justice.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the NCR verdicts, substituted findings of guilt for the original offences, and imposed a concurrent sentence of one day, with execution stayed.

The appellant, Antonio Ricciardi, appealed his convictions for 17 serious offences involving three women, including attempted kidnapping, confinement, criminal harassment, assault with disguise, and robbery, and his global sentence of 14 years incarceration.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's comprehensive and fair assessment of the evidence or in the global sentence imposed for the long list of criminal offences against vulnerable women.

Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of an illegal weapon, challenging the trial judge's finding that the firing pin for the weapon was "readily sourced and available." The appellant argued this conclusion was speculative and unsupported by evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion was supported by the evidentiary record, including evidence that the gun was common in the United States where parts were readily available, and that smuggling of parts into Canada occurs despite legal prohibitions.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for sexual assault and mischief arising from an incident where he touched the complainant and raised her skirt on a public bus.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal for sexual assault, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the original sentence of six months' imprisonment was wholly disproportionate for a first offender with 13 days of pre-sentence custody.

The sentence was varied to a suspended sentence with two years' probation.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge or, alternatively, permission to live in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

The court rejected the argument that there was a treatment impasse, noting that the diagnosis had been clarified and the treatment team was trying different approaches.

The appellant appealed her 9-year sentence for manslaughter, arguing it was outside the appropriate range and failed to give meaningful effect to her Aboriginal status under Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge properly considered and distinguished relevant case law, and appropriately balanced rehabilitative and Gladue objectives with the paramount need for public safety given the appellant's substance abuse and risk to the community.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge should have given a specific caution regarding the complainant's evidence and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury was capable of assessing the complainant's credibility using common sense and the general instructions provided.

The court also held that a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could have reached the verdict.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

Following a request for an early Board hearing, counsel advised that the appeal would not be pursued.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellant appealed a global sentence of five years for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration and leaving the scene of an accident.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to give appropriate weight to the gap principle, failing to consider his unstable health, and relying on a rejected finding of fact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle.

The court noted the appellant's extensive record of nearly three dozen prior related convictions and evidence of continued excessive alcohol consumption during the conviction-free period.

The appellant appealed his conviction for a home invasion, arguing that the trial judge's decision should receive less deference due to prior errors, that the trial judge misapprehended identification evidence, and that the reasons were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that prior corrections do not affect deference, the trial judge made no substantive error in using a tattoo and gold tooth covers as identification evidence, and the reasons were brief but adequate.

The sentence appeal was abandoned.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences against his young child.

At trial, the Crown called an expert in child sexual abuse to testify about the child's out-of-court statements.

The expert's testimony went beyond permissible bounds by indicating his belief in the veracity of the child's foster parents and the child's disclosures, effectively usurping the jury's role in assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in admitting this testimony without requiring the use of hypothetical questions to properly confine the expert's opinion.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissing his appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law or material misapprehension of evidence in the lower court's reasons.

The court held there was ample evidence to support the conviction and rejected the argument that the verdict was unreasonable.

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

The appellant appealed his seven-year consecutive sentence for assault and aggravated assault on a fellow inmate.

The trial judge imposed a sentence exceeding the Crown's proposal of five years consecutive, but rejected the Crown's request for an extended period of parole ineligibility.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the appellant's lengthy criminal record and the serious injuries suffered by the victim.

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

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder, arguing the trial judge erred in his jury charge regarding the distinction between murder and manslaughter, after-the-fact evidence, and the defence theory of natural causes.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the jury charge, noting the lack of objections from trial counsel.

The fresh evidence application was denied as it did not meet the Palmer test and could not reasonably be expected to have affected the verdict given the powerful circumstantial evidence of culpable homicide.

The applicant sought release on bail pending trial for an offence involving a fatal stabbing.

Fresh evidence was introduced suggesting the deceased was the aggressor, providing context for the applicant's conduct.

The Court of Appeal found that, given the new information, detention was not justified on the tertiary ground, and the applicant met his onus on the secondary ground due to the availability of sureties to monitor his conduct.

The application for bail was granted.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and his 22-month sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting a co-accused's videotaped K.G.B. statement for the truth of its contents, specifically challenging the application of the balance of probabilities standard to the issue of voluntariness.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge applied the correct standard of proof and made no errors in finding the statement voluntary.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge correctly found a conditional sentence would not adequately address denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant appealed a ruling by Justice Archie G. Campbell.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower court that the error in question was within jurisdiction and therefore not subject to certiorari.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence imposed on the respondent, arguing it was too light for a serious offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the trial judge's exercise of discretion given the very favourable pre-sentence report.