Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm and drug offences and his sentence of 7.5 years.

He argued the trial judge erred in drawing adverse inferences about his knowledge of the contraband found in his vehicle, in assessing police testimony, and in admitting the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter despite a s. 8 breach.

He also sought a sentence reduction due to the Charter breach and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's reasoning or Charter analysis.

However, the court set aside the $1,600 victim fine surcharge.

The appellants, a father and stepmother, were convicted of second-degree murder in the death of their ten-year-old son following prolonged abuse.

On appeal, the father argued the trial judge erred in denying a mid-trial application for severance after late disclosure of photographs.

The stepmother argued the trial judge erred in finding her pre-arrest and post-arrest statements to police were voluntary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no injustice in the denial of severance and upholding the trial judge's application of the law on voluntariness.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge erred in finding police had objectively reasonable grounds for his arrest and in failing to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The police had received a tip and observed the appellant making a series of short stops over two days.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the pattern of conduct, combined with the tip, removed the possibility of innocent coincidence and provided a credibly based probability of drug trafficking.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge's reasons were inadequate and seeking to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were responsive to the defence's argument that the complainant attempted to frame the appellant.

The Court also declined to admit the fresh evidence, concluding it could not reasonably undermine the complainant's credibility on material issues.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing it should be reduced to under six months to avoid significant immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal proceeded on the basis of an error in principle but found that a sentence of six months was well outside the appropriate range given the appellant's serious criminal background and numerous violations of court orders.

As immigration consequences cannot justify a sentence outside the appropriate range, and the appellant had already served the sentence, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and was sentenced to 17 months and 14 days' custody, along with a forfeiture order for his van, cellular phone, and cash.

He appealed the sentence and the forfeiture order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the custodial sentence, finding it fit given the appellant's record and the fact he was on bail for the same offence.

However, the Court set aside the forfeiture order, concluding the Crown failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the van, phone, or cash were offence-related property, as there was no evidence linking them to the commission of the offence.

The respondent was found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and other charges.

The Ontario Review Board granted him an absolute discharge, finding he no longer posed a significant risk to public safety.

The hospital appealed, seeking to introduce fresh evidence that the respondent had rapidly decompensated, resumed substance abuse, and become aggressive shortly after his discharge.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding it could reasonably have affected the board's decision as it undermined the factual foundation of the absolute discharge.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the board for a rehearing.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after stabbing an unarmed victim.

He appealed his convictions on several grounds, including allegations of juror coercion and outside influence, the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury on self-defence under section 37 of the Criminal Code, and the trial judge's review of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the juror's allegations of coercion were protected by juror secrecy, the alleged outside influence was not capable of influencing the jury, and there was no air of reality to a self-defence claim under section 37.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of his prior misconduct.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge failed to provide a clear ruling on the basis for admitting the evidence and the use made of it.

The court noted it was unclear whether the evidence was used as similar fact evidence or for credibility.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a restitution order imposed as part of her sentence.

The sentencing judge had imposed the order primarily to save the victim the expense of civil litigation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the restitution order, noting that the appellant was unemployed and bankrupt, and therefore had no ability to pay.

The appellant appealed his conviction for breaking and entering and committing sexual assault, arguing his guilty plea was not voluntary and informed due to the incompetence of his trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's conduct throughout the multi-day trial, including his failure to object to the facts read-in and his own testimony, belied his claim that he did not intend to plead guilty to the offence as charged.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Crown improperly used a police officer's notes to refresh the complainant's memory by reading them verbatim.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the manner of refreshing memory was improper, but found no prejudice because verification occurred during a phone call between the complainant and the officer, and the complainant had some independent recollection of the calls.

The court also rejected the admission of fresh evidence as irrelevant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

At the request of the appellant, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention in a medium secure unit.

He argued the Board erred by failing to explore alternate treatment options, that the process was unconstitutional, and that the disposition was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no impasse in treatment, noting the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the constitutionality of the process, and concluding the disposition was reasonable given the appellant's lack of insight into his schizophrenia, history of violence, and the resulting risk to the public.

The appellant appealed his conviction for using a firearm while committing an indictable offence and his sentence.

He had shot a friend in the eye with a pellet gun while intoxicated.

The trial judge found recklessness satisfied the mens rea for both aggravated assault and the firearm offence.

The Court of Appeal held that while the trial judge erred in equating the mens rea for the two offences, the factual finding that the appellant intended to point and fire the gun satisfied the general intent requirement for the firearm offence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder following a fatal stabbing during a bar altercation.

At trial, the appellant raised self-defence and sought to introduce the deceased's criminal record and a transcript of a guilty plea to demonstrate the deceased's propensity for violence.

The trial judge excluded this evidence.

Furthermore, in response to a jury question, the trial judge instructed that 'recklessness' for murder meant foreseeing a 'risk' of death rather than a 'likelihood'.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in excluding the propensity evidence and in the jury charge on recklessness.

The curative proviso was not applied, the appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for choking, assault causing bodily harm, uttering a death threat, forcible confinement, and sexual assault, as well as his sentence.

He argued the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the complainant's delayed disclosure of the sexual assaults, the Crown's failure to call the complainant's daughter as a witness, and the rejection of his Corbett application.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible errors in the jury instructions, noting that the trial judge properly warned against stereotypical assumptions regarding delayed disclosure.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, and leave to appeal the sentence was denied.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder of his ex-wife.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on motive, eyewitness identification, DNA evidence under the victim's fingernails, and after-the-fact conduct including flight.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in his instructions on eyewitness identification, hearsay evidence of the victim's statements, discreditable conduct, collateral evidence, consciousness of innocence, and the admission of autopsy photographs.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible errors, noting the trial judge's charge was fair and balanced, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving causing death following a retrial.

He argued that the trial judge erred in jury instructions regarding witness reliability, the use of his exculpatory statement, and legal causation.

He also raised issues regarding the Crown's failure to call a witness from the first trial and issue estoppel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding no errors in the jury instructions, no abuse of process in the retrial, and no error in principle regarding the sentence.

The Crown sought an extension of time to serve a notice of application for leave to appeal and notice of appeal after a summary conviction appeal judge quashed a conviction and entered an acquittal.

Applying the factors governing extension motions, the court held that the Crown formed a bona fide intention to appeal within time, exercised reasonable diligence in attempting service, caused no prejudice by two-day late service, and advanced an eminently arguable appeal.

The court also held that a structured internal Crown appeal approval process in criminal matters is appropriate and that a 20-day decision-making period was reasonable.

The extension was granted in the interests of justice.