Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant, Geoffrey Le Feuvre, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), arguing the Board's finding of significant public threat was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found the appeal moot because a subsequent urgent hearing resulted in a new disposition transferring the appellant to a different facility with community living privileges.

The court declined to hear the appeal on its merits due to the material change in circumstances and ordered an expedited new hearing by the Board to assess the significant threat issue based on the appellant's current situation.

The appellant appealed a sentence of two years imposed for offences involving her own very young daughter.

The appellant sought to reduce the global sentence to one year by making the sentences concurrent rather than consecutive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the global sentence, finding the two-year sentence entirely deserving of the appellant's conduct.

The court confirmed that a weapons prohibition was mandatory and could not be changed.

However, the court modified the prohibition order based on fresh evidence regarding the appellant's employment prospects after sentence, reducing the age restriction from sixteen to fifteen years in specified paragraphs.

An appeal from a committal order for extradition to the United States.

The appellant challenged the committal judge's dismissal of a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from searches of electronic devices.

The searches were authorized by warrants based on information from an iPhone examined and seized during U.S. Customs preclearance at Pearson Airport.

The Court of Appeal found that the examination of the iPhone violated section 8 of the Charter because it occurred after the appellant was detained.

The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a new extradition hearing to determine whether the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter and whether sufficient evidence remains for committal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault arising from an incident on January 31, 2016, where he met the complainant in a bar and took her to his parents' apartment.

The complainant testified that after consensual kissing, she expressed that she did not want to have sex, but the appellant proceeded with non-consensual vaginal intercourse and anal contact.

The appellant testified that the intercourse was consensual and denied anal contact.

The trial judge convicted the appellant based on acceptance of the complainant's credibility and rejection of the appellant's evidence.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: insufficiency of reasons, improper use of prior consistent statements, and uneven scrutiny of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds and upheld the conviction.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault by a judge sitting alone.

The complainant alleged that on October 16, 1992, after a night of drinking, she awoke to find the appellant having intercourse with her.

DNA evidence established that the appellant was the father of the complainant's child, confirming intercourse had occurred.

The central issue at trial was whether the complainant had consented.

The appellant argued the trial judge relied on a Crown misstatement of evidence regarding similar language used by both parties about the sexual act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence from four years to three years, finding the trial judge had improperly treated the appellant's absence of remorse as an aggravating factor.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition granting a conditional discharge to an NCR accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board found the appellant continued to pose a significant threat and imposed conditions including psychiatric medication compliance, monthly hospital reporting, and substance abstinence.

The Court of Appeal found the Board applied the wrong legal test, conflating the possibility of decompensation with a positive finding of significant threat.

However, fresh evidence of subsequent concerning behaviour (drug use, medication non-compliance, renewed focus on the victim) warranted remission to the Board for reassessment under the correct legal standard.

The appellant appealed his sentence of three years imposed for robbery and dangerous driving, arguing that the trial judge should have imposed concurrent rather than consecutive sentences.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's approach, which balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation prospects.

The court dismissed the appeal but set aside the $400 victim fine surcharge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for break and enter and sexual assault of a police officer, as well as his sentence of time served.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to address the appellant's apparent intoxication in the context of the specific intent offence of break and enter.

Both counsel agreed to substitute a conviction for forcible entry contrary to s. 72(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant's conviction for sexual assault was upheld as the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and credibility.

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

The victim fine surcharge was set aside on consent.

An appellant found not criminally responsible on grounds of mental disorder appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition placing him on a detention order with removal of an alcohol prohibition condition.

The appellant argued the detention order was more restrictive than his previous conditional discharge and that the Board's objectives could have been achieved through maintaining the conditional discharge while removing only the alcohol prohibition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that when viewed holistically with the privileges and prohibitions included, the detention order was actually less restrictive and was justified to allow implementation of a Community Treatment Order and to manage the appellant's risk to public safety.

The Crown appealed from directed acquittals on charges of break and enter, pointing a firearm, and forcible confinement arising from an alleged assault on Alex Gingras.

The trial judge had granted a directed verdict motion at the end of the Crown's case.

The respondent did not appeal his convictions on other charges.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge improperly assessed the credibility and reliability of the Crown witness and that there was evidence capable of supporting convictions on all three counts.

The court rejected the respondent's alternative argument that the verdicts would necessarily have been the same had the trial judge properly refused the directed verdict motion, as it could not assume the respondent would not have testified.

The appeals were allowed, the acquittals were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition maintaining a detention order for an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge but the Board continued the detention order at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, finding the appellant presented a significant threat to public safety due to lack of insight into his condition, poor medication compliance without supervision, and substance abuse issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was supported by evidence and represented the least onerous and least restrictive disposition appropriate in the circumstances.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction for dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

While responding to an emergency at high speed, he drove through a small town at 178 kmph in a 50 kmph zone, passed a construction zone and school, and collided with another vehicle.

Trial counsel conceded the actus reus and causation.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the appellant's circumstances.

The trial judge found it did, and the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal sentence but was unsuccessful.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown conceded that the sentence imposed exceeded the maximum available under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the sentence and varied it to 24 months' custody and supervision (16 months secure custody and 8 months community supervision), with 494 days of custody credited against the sentence, followed by 12 months' probation with specified conditions.

The court considered fresh evidence demonstrating the appellant's rehabilitative progress.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter in 1971 for the death of his common-law wife and served over three years in prison.

Decades later, fresh medical evidence from multiple pathologists concluded the deceased died of natural causes following a fall, contradicting the trial evidence of blunt force trauma.

The Supreme Court of Canada remanded the case to the Court of Appeal.

On a joint submission with the Crown, the Court admitted the fresh evidence, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal, noting the appellant was wrongly convicted.

The respondent, an architect, began constructing a new home with the intention of occupying it with his family.

When his existing home failed to sell, his intention changed, and he eventually sold the new home.

He was charged with acting as an unregistered builder and failing to enrol the home under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld his acquittals, finding that the statutory definition of 'builder' applies to those who undertake construction for the purpose of sale from the outset, not to those who begin building for personal use and later change their intention.

The respondent was charged with trafficking cocaine.

On the trial date, the assigned Crown counsel realized she had previously represented the respondent and eventually disclosed a potential conflict of interest.

The trial judge stayed the proceedings as an abuse of process and awarded costs against the Crown, finding the Crown's conduct placed the respondent in an untenable position.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in concluding the Crown could not prove its case and failed to apply the proper legal principles for a stay of proceedings.

The stay and costs orders were set aside.

The appellant appealed her conviction for the second-degree murder of her partner's two-year-old child.

She argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on expert pathological evidence regarding blunt force trauma and on her post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge fairly and accurately dealt with the expert evidence and properly instructed the jury that if they accepted the appellant's innocent explanation for her post-offence lies, that conduct could not be used as circumstantial evidence of guilt.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible, appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at a mental health centre.

The appellant argued the Board failed to meaningfully consider how he could be conditionally discharged.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable because it failed to explain why detention was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, particularly given the availability of conditions regarding medication and statutory mechanisms for return to hospital.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed his sentence for a serious domestic assault.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misunderstood the Crown's position on sentence and imposed a sentence beyond the proposal without providing reasons.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to 15 months, factoring in a 22-month base sentence and 7 months of credit for pretrial custody.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable.

The victim had described his assailant's build, hair, clothing, age, and state of intoxication.

The appellant was found in the area twenty minutes later matching the description, had scratches on his chest, admitted to being in a fight, and was immediately recognized by the victim.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge properly dealt with minor inconsistencies and dismissed the appeal.