Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCA

The Crown appealed the imposition of a determinate 9-year sentence and 10-year long-term supervision order on a designated Dangerous Offender.

The offender had committed new offences of domestic violence while subject to a previous long-term supervision order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the presumption of indeterminate detention under s. 753.01(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appellate court held that the evidence did not establish a reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence would adequately protect the public, as there was no assurance that the necessary treatment and supervision would be available.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed his conviction for attempted murder arising from a single gunshot fired during a melee in a bar parking lot.

He argued that the verdict was unreasonable due to inconsistencies between the video evidence and the medical evidence regarding the bullet's trajectory, and that the trial judge misapplied the mens rea for attempted murder by convicting on the basis of recklessness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions on identity and intent were firmly grounded in the video evidence and that the trial judge correctly applied the requirement of specific intent to kill.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) and detained at CAMH, appealed a Review Board disposition continuing his detention despite being designated as alternate level of care.

The appellant proposed a conditional discharge with a Young clause and treatment compliance conditions, or alternatively, living with family due to a lack of community housing.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board failed to properly consider the proposed safeguards, did not adequately inquire into family accommodation, and based its risk assessment on speculative concerns and unsupported assumptions.

The Court also overturned its previous decision in Negash regarding the enforceability of hospital readmission under section 672.93(2) of the Criminal Code.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Dwayne Thomas’s appeal from a six-and-a-half year sentence for sexual assault and breach of trust.

The court found the trial judge was entitled to exceed the usual sentencing range due to the aggravated breach of trust and the victim’s vulnerability as an incarcerated person.

The court rejected arguments that the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to rehabilitation, the harshness of incarceration for a former correctional officer, and post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts.

The decision affirms the priority of deterrence and denunciation in sentencing for sexual assault by persons in positions of authority.

The appellant, who had previously been found not criminally responsible for a prior offence, pleaded guilty to serious assaults committed while in a psychiatric facility.

He was subsequently designated a dangerous offender.

He appealed the sentencing judge's refusal to strike his guilty pleas, arguing he did not understand the potential for an indeterminate sentence and that the judge misapprehended the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the pleas were informed and that the delayed release of the motion judge's reasons did not render them an after-the-fact justification.

The appellant, Mario Inacio, appealed his convictions for robbery, unlawful confinement, assault, threatening death, and extortion, stemming from a dispute over a $400 rent payment.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to adequately assess the reliability of the complainant's evidence, given her admitted drug use and memory problems.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of reliability, noting that the judge was aware of the complainant's issues but nonetheless accepted her evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction and sentence entered by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned after the appellant failed to attend the hearing despite being advised that the Crown would seek dismissal for non-attendance.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered by the Ontario Court of Justice on March 8, 2016.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly assessed the circumstantial evidence and that no error in law or clear and palpable factual error was demonstrated.

The court held that the failure to articulate alternative factual scenarios in the reasons for judgment does not equate to a failure to consider them.

The reasons were found to be adequate as the judge reviewed the evidence and made the basis for his finding clear.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, detained under the Ontario Review Board for over 30 years, appealed the Board's disposition continuing his detention at St. Joseph's Healthcare.

He argued the Board erred in refusing an adjournment, relying on hearsay evidence, failing to address his sleep deprivation, and refusing a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the adjournment issue moot and no basis to interfere with the Board's substantive decisions, though it noted the Board erred in its approach to the adjournment request and urged it to address the sleep deprivation issue at the next review.

The appellant, a high school teacher, was convicted of sexual interference and sexual assault against a 14-year-old student.

He appealed his convictions, arguing primarily that the trial judge erred by permitting the Crown to call a vice-principal as a reply witness to rebut the appellant's testimony regarding a conversation between them.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the reply evidence did not breach the rule against case-splitting because the Crown could not have reasonably anticipated the appellant's testimony.

The court also dismissed arguments regarding inadmissible hearsay and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

The appellant, a commercial truck driver, was convicted of importing cocaine after 53 kilograms of cocaine were found hidden in his trailer.

At trial, the Crown introduced an expert police report on the use of commercial vehicles for transporting contraband.

The report contained both general opinions and case-specific opinions regarding the appellant's credibility and knowledge of the drugs.

The Court of Appeal held that the case-specific opinions were inadmissible as they usurped the role of the trier of fact.

Finding that the trial judge improperly relied on this inadmissible evidence to conclude the appellant knew about the cocaine, the majority allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant pleaded guilty to break, enter and theft of a dwelling house and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, less 1:1 credit for pre-sentence custody.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred by declining to grant enhanced credit at a rate of 1.5:1.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of demonstrating that enhanced credit was warranted.

The appellant appealed his conviction for a home invasion robbery, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting a recanted K.G.B. statement, relying on the witness's guilty plea, and drawing an adverse inference from the late disclosure of the recantation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in admitting the statement or using the guilty plea to assess reliability.

However, the court held the trial judge erred in law by drawing an adverse inference against the appellant for the late disclosure of the recantation, as accused persons generally have no obligation to disclose their defence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention on a secure forensic unit.

He argued the Board erred by rejecting a hybrid disposition that would have allowed discretion to transfer him to a general forensic unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that a hybrid disposition was premature to be reasonable given the early stages of the appellant's treatment.

Although the Board improperly relied on the appellant's request for an absolute discharge to buttress its findings, the error was of no consequence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge provided inadequate reasons regarding the complainant's alleged motive to fabricate, failed to assess witness reliability, and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge implicitly rejected the motive to fabricate by accepting the complainant's evidence.

The Court also noted the trial was short, making express reliability analysis unnecessary, and found no uneven scrutiny, highlighting that the appellant's inculpatory statements supported the complainant's credibility.

The appellant, a 20-year-old at the time of the offence, appealed his sentence.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding a question of law regarding whether the sentencing judge considered if a conditional discharge would serve the public interest.

Noting the appellant's positive post-offence conduct, including compensating the victim, complying with probation, and successfully completing two years of medical school, the Court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to a conditional discharge.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his application for certiorari and prohibition based on alleged reasonable apprehension of bias and procedural unfairness by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's frustration with delays in a summary impaired driving proceeding and counsel's inability to cooperate was understandable and did not reflect bias.

The court remitted the matter to the Ontario Court of Justice for trial to proceed expeditiously.

The self-represented applicant sought leave to appeal his conviction, challenging the inferences drawn by the trial judge regarding his state of mind.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding that the arguments did not raise questions of law or issues of significance beyond the specific case.

The Crown appealed a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision that overturned the respondent's conviction.

The trial judge had found that the respondent had no realistic opportunity to consult counsel before a roadside screening device arrived, based on the late hour and the short, anticipated delay of five to ten minutes.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court substituted its own findings of fact, concluding the respondent had a cell phone and faced an unknown delay.

The Court of Appeal held that the Summary Conviction Appeal Court erred in substituting its findings, as the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored.

The appellant appealed his sentence, introducing fresh evidence regarding his severe health problems and ineligibility for day parole.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the health issues did not render the sentence unfit and noting that the appellant would likely be deported early, freeing him from the sentence entirely.