Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCA

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching against a 14-year-old complainant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to disclose the second part of a jury note asking for a rest day, failing to give a cross-count reasoning instruction, and failing to give a prior consistent statement instruction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's handling of the jury note, which did not indicate rushed deliberations or prejudice.

The court also found that the additional jury instructions were not necessary, as there was no risk of cross-count reasoning and the Crown did not rely on prior consistent statements to bolster credibility.

The appellant, Shafaq Joya, appealed the Ontario Review Board’s decision to continue his conditional discharge and deny his Charter application for an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board’s assessment of risk and refusal to grant an absolute discharge were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The court also found no Charter breach, as the Board’s decision was based on public safety, not resource limitations.

Michael Katz appealed the two-year sentence imposed after pleading guilty to several offences, including possession of a loaded firearm, assaulting a police officer with a weapon, impaired operation of a motor vehicle, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge’s approach or conclusions.

The court also substituted a three-year driving prohibition, to commence from the date of sentencing, in place of the original 18-month prohibition, in accordance with the Criminal Code and relevant case law.

The appellant, Clayton Williams, appealed his conviction and indeterminate sentence for offences arising from two break and enters, one involving the sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl.

The Court of Appeal rejected arguments that the verdict was unreasonable, that the search warrant was invalid, and that a determinate sentence with long-term supervision was more appropriate.

The court found the trial judge’s factual findings and risk assessment reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants, David Case and Celine Loyer, appealed their convictions for sexual assault, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable due to the complainant's "flashback" memory being unreliable.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's memory and the confirmatory evidence to be reasonable and not fundamentally flawed.

The dissenting judge would have ordered a new trial, concluding that the trial judge's reasoning regarding the reliability of the "sleeping flashback" was circular and illogical, and that the confirmatory evidence was overstated.

Both sentence appeals regarding a no-contact condition were also dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of importing a controlled substance (cocaine) and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.

He appealed both his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's decision to exclude a prior exculpatory statement under the Edgar exception, the application of the W.(D.) analysis, or the treatment of circumstantial evidence.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, affirming the trial judge's imposition of a sentence at the low end of the established range for cocaine importation, and clarified the reconciliation of the Cunningham sentencing range with the proportionality principles emphasized in Parranto.

The applicant, convicted of serious sexual offences against a child in foster care, applied for bail pending appeal of his conviction.

The Court of Appeal considered the three criteria under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code: whether the appeal is not frivolous, whether the applicant will surrender into custody, and whether detention is necessary in the public interest.

While the first two criteria were met or conceded, the court focused on public confidence in the administration of justice, balancing the public interest in reviewability against enforceability.

Given the gravity of the offences, the aggravated circumstances, the lengthy sentence, and the weakness of the grounds of appeal (which did not "clearly surpass" the not frivolous standard), the court found that the interest in immediate enforcement outweighed the interest in release.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed her conviction for attempting to possess heroin for the purpose of trafficking and her sentence of 9 years imprisonment (less 36 days credit for pre-trial custody).

The conviction arose from the appellant's pickup of a shipment containing 3.3 kilograms of heroin that had been intercepted at Pearson International Airport and replaced with a control sample by police.

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of misapprehension of evidence and unreasonableness of verdict, and sought sentence reduction based on alleged errors in principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the trial judge's findings of fact and sentencing decision to be reasonable and fit.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault against a young woman with an intellectual disability.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence reliable and convicted the appellant.

On appeal, the majority held that the trial judge's reasons were deficient in several respects: the trial judge failed to adequately address the complainant's reliability, particularly her heightened suggestibility as established by expert evidence; the trial judge appeared to find the complainant's evidence self-corroborating when it was not; and the trial judge failed to explain why the defence evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The majority concluded these deficiencies, taken together, foreclosed meaningful appellate review and set aside the conviction, ordering a new trial.

The dissent argued the trial judge's reasons were adequate and that the trial judge was clearly alive to the reliability issues.

The appellant, who had died prior to the appeal hearing, was convicted on March 16, 2017 by Justice Randall W. Lalande of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Both the Crown and the appellant's counsel agreed that the conviction represented a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal.

The appellants brought a motion to raise new issues on appeal regarding the eligibility of a juror who was a former auxiliary police officer.

They sought to argue that the juror was ineligible under the Juries Act and, alternatively, under the Charter.

The Court of Appeal permitted the appellants to advance the statutory interpretation argument but denied permission to advance the Charter argument, with full reasons to follow in the appeal judgment.

The appellant appealed her convictions for fraud and use of a forged document.

The charges arose from her cashing Canada Savings Bonds in her sister's name using an allegedly forged power of attorney.

The appellant claimed the funds were hers and placed in her sister's name to hide them during a marital breakdown.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, finding that even if the funds were hers, cashing bonds in her sister's name constituted fraud, and placed the onus on the appellant to prove the power of attorney was valid.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in law on the elements of fraud, improperly shifted the burden of proof regarding the power of attorney, and failed to meaningfully analyze the complainant's evidence.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were quashed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

He was arrested during the execution of a search warrant in an apartment, holding cash and a knife, moments after being seen on a balcony where drugs were later found.

The Court of Appeal held that the drug convictions were unreasonable because the circumstantial evidence did not support guilt as the only reasonable inference.

However, the court upheld the proceeds of crime conviction, finding no other reasonable explanation for the cash.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 15, 2010.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the basis that it was moot.

The young person appealed a Summary Conviction Appeal Judge's decision ordering a new trial after an acquittal.

The trial judge had excluded the complainant's cross-examination when assessing the admissibility of his disclosure to his mother under the necessity inquiry.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge erred, as the cross-examination was relevant to the necessity inquiry.

While disagreeing with the Summary Conviction Appeal Judge that the evidence should necessarily have been admitted, the Court of Appeal declined to apply the proviso to sustain the acquittal, as the excluded evidence may have affected the outcome.

The appeal was dismissed.

The young person appealed the decision of the application judge refusing a transfer to Youth Court pursuant to s. 16(9) of the Young Offenders Act.

The application judge found that the young person constituted a danger to the public based on a risk assessment, personal history, and involvement in a serious offence.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge's evaluation and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown appealed the global sentence of ten years (less four years pre-trial custody) imposed on the respondent for aggravated sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm against his six-year-old stepdaughter, and aggravated assault against his five-week-old biological son.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence manifestly inadequate, noting the trial judge over-emphasized the principle of totality and failed to adequately reflect the gravity of the offences, deterrence, denunciation, and the need to separate the respondent from society.

The global sentence was increased to sixteen years (less four years pre-trial custody).

The appellant appealed his convictions for incest, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation.

The central issue was whether the trial judge provided adequate jury instructions regarding evidence of the appellant's discreditable conduct, including alleged physical abuse and sexual misconduct outside the indictment period.

The Court of Appeal found the instructions inadequate, noting they failed to caution the jury against using the evidence to infer the appellant was the type of person to commit the offences or to conclude he was deserving of punishment.

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

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed for a violent offence committed by an offender with a prior record for violence, addictions, and mental health concerns.

The court accepted that the offender had posed a significant danger at the time of the offence, but emphasized the substantial rehabilitation achieved before and after sentencing.

The sentencing judge had carefully considered the authorities and tailored a conditional sentence to minimize the risk of reoffending while preserving rehabilitation prospects and community protection.

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

Criminal appeal arising from a conviction for criminal negligence causing death following a police shooting during a land claim protest.

The principal issue was whether the trial judge was required to hold a voir dire before permitting cross-examination on statements allegedly made by the accused to a superior officer, including whether that superior was a person in authority and whether the statements were voluntary.

A dissenting judge would have ordered a new trial, holding that the inquiry obligation was triggered and the curative proviso could not be applied.

The majority dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the absence of a voir dire caused no substantial wrong and did not affect the verdict; the mistrial appeal, fresh evidence motion, and Crown sentence appeal were also dismissed.