Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCA

The appellant, Keldon Halstead, abandoned his appeal from convictions entered by Justice Shaun S. Nakatsuru of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario, constituted by Fairburn A.C.J.O., Trotter J.A., and Harvison Young J.A., noted the abandonment at Mr. Halstead’s request and dismissed the appeal.

The decision is subject to a publication ban on the identity of a witness under section 486.31(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued supplementary reasons to its judgment, addressing the disposition and sentence after setting aside the appellant's conviction for possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking.

Given the appellant had served her original sentence and demonstrated rehabilitation, the court accepted a joint submission to dismiss the appeal, substitute a verdict of guilty for simple possession of oxycodone, and impose an absolute discharge effective from the original sentencing date.

The appellants, Elias Akhi and Jezreel Moxam, appealed their convictions for robbery, assault with a weapon, and other offences arising from a home invasion.

The Court of Appeal found serious errors in the trial judge's jury instructions, specifically regarding party liability (aiding and common intention) and the failure to adequately delineate between the two accused and the multiple counts.

The instructions were deemed confusing and insufficient to properly equip the jury.

Consequently, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered for both appellants.

The appellants, Jasmine and Richard Doxtator, appealed their first-degree murder convictions.

Their primary argument was that the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on the included offences of second-degree murder and manslaughter for Jasmine Doxtator, which they argued also impacted Richard Doxtator's trial.

The Court of Appeal, in a majority decision, agreed that there was an "air of reality" to the lesser included offences for Jasmine Doxtator, and the trial judge's failure to leave these options to the jury constituted a legal error that tainted the verdict for both appellants.

The court rejected the Crown's argument to apply the curative proviso.

Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and a new trial was ordered for both Jasmine and Richard Doxtator.

The appellant, B.G., appealed convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault.

The main issue was whether Crown counsel invited the jury to rely on impermissible racial or cultural stereotyping during cross-examination of defence witnesses and in closing arguments.

The court found that the Crown's questioning and address created a risk of the jury applying negative stereotypes about Indian culture, particularly regarding women's agency and truthfulness, which was not supported by evidence.

The absence of a specific cautionary instruction from the trial judge resulted in an unfair trial.

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

This is an appeal from convictions for drug and firearm offences and the imposed sentence.

The appellant challenged the validity of search warrants, the warrantless "pinging" of his cell phone, and the calculation of pre-trial custody credit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on the warrants and the admissibility of evidence, including the "judge-shopping" issue.

The sentence appeal was allowed to grant additional pre-trial custody credit.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for past violent offences due to mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing that the ORB's conclusion of significant public safety risk was unsupported and its reasons insufficient.

The Court of Appeal found the ORB's conclusion reasonable, based on evidence of the appellant's major mental illness, lack of insight, intent to stop medication, and unwillingness to abstain from drug use, which posed a substantial risk of decompensation and violent relapse.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the ORB's conditional discharge.

The appellant appealed his sentence of four years' imprisonment for the sexual assault of his estranged spouse and use of an imitation firearm.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by treating premeditation as an aggravating factor, by granting insufficient enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and by imposing an overly long probationary period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the agreed statement of facts supported the finding of premeditation, the sentence was within the appropriate range, and the enhanced credit and probation orders were reasonable exercises of discretion.

Benham Yaali sought leave to appeal a 13-year sentence for manslaughter, arguing the sentencing judge erred by considering handgun possession as an aggravating factor and by failing to properly account for provocation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, upholding the sentencing judge's discretion in weighing factors.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed, except for setting aside the victim impact surcharge.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm and operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol causing bodily harm following a multi-vehicle accident on Dixie Road in Mississauga on October 19, 2013.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sought leave to introduce fresh evidence suggesting that another individual, "Volodya," was the actual driver of the van.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the motion to admit fresh evidence and the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence failed to meet the cogency component of the test for admission and that the verdict was not unreasonable.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition dated February 1, 2018, ordering the appellant's detention subject to conditions.

The appeal became moot when the Board issued a new disposition on January 14, 2019, before the appeal hearing.

The Court of Appeal declined to hear the moot appeal, applying the two-step analysis from Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General).

The court found no live controversy affecting the parties' rights and determined that the Borowski factors did not justify exercising discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The court indicated willingness to hear an appeal from the 2019 disposition at an early date.

The appellant appealed his convictions for internet luring, sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching of a 15-year-old complainant, as well as his global sentence of five and one-half years.

This was the second trial on these charges; the first trial resulted in acquittal on charges involving the same complainant, but a Crown appeal led to a new trial.

The appellant admitted to sexual activity with the complainant but claimed he honestly believed her to be between 16 and 18 years old, despite meeting her on an 18+ chat site where her profile listed her age as 18.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, upholding both the convictions and the sentence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for multiple drug trafficking offences and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The charges stemmed from two indictments: the first arising from a warrantless police entry into a hotel room, and the second from subsequent search warrants based on information obtained from cell phones seized during the hotel room entry.

The trial judge found the hotel room entry violated s. 8 of the Charter but admitted all evidence under s. 24(2), finding the breach was mitigated by police good faith and the appellant's reduced expectation of privacy.

The appellant was convicted of all charges and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentencing appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered on April 23, 2015 and sentence imposed on August 4, 2015 by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred by failing to provide reasonable assistance to the appellant in respect of Charter views.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The appellant fell asleep at the wheel while driving under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine, causing a serious collision that injured two victims.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's arguments that the sentence was unfit, finding that the sentencing judge properly considered the relevant principles, the serious nature of the offence, the appellant's status as a novice driver, and the catastrophic consequences of the accident.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a Canadian citizen, was sought for extradition by the United States on charges of conspiracy to import marijuana and money laundering.

The Minister of Justice issued an Authority to Proceed for the Canadian offences of importing a controlled substance and possession of property obtained by crime.

After the applicant consented to committal, the Minister ordered his surrender on the U.S. conspiracy charges and declined to seek assurances regarding sentencing standards.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the surrender order must align with the Canadian offences in the committal order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, applying the Supreme Court's conduct-based approach to double criminality, which does not require alignment between the surrender order and the extradition order.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued that the jury was misled by the trial judge's charge on reasonable doubt and that the verdicts were inconsistent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no merit in the arguments and concluding that the jury likely divided the incident into episodes.

The court also refused leave to appeal the sentence, finding no error in principle.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a sexual offence involving a young complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding reasonable doubt, eye-witness identification, and in exhorting the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the instructions proper.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge appropriately weighed character evidence against the aggravating factors of grooming and a quasi-trust position, making a conditional sentence inappropriate.

The appellant appealed an effective sentence of 12.5 years for aggravated assault.

The trial judge had characterized the offence as the worst of its kind, noting the appellant's clear intent to torture the victim and lack of remorse.

The Court of Appeal distinguished the case law relied upon by the appellant and upheld the severe sentence, agreeing with the trial judge's characterization of the circumstances.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual offences against two child complainants and sought a proportionate sentence reduction if one conviction were overturned.

The court rejected challenges to the jury charge on reasonable doubt, held that any error in admitting two prior discreditable incidents was harmless, and found no reviewable prejudice arising from the treatment of prior statements.

On the second complainant's count, the court upheld admission of a videotaped statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code notwithstanding a delay of approximately two years, relying on the evidentiary record explaining delayed disclosure by a timid child witness.

The conviction appeals were dismissed, leave to appeal sentence was granted, and the sentence appeal was dismissed.