Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCA

The appellant, Adriel Cyrus, sought to bifurcate his conviction and sentence appeals after being convicted of two counts of sexual assault and one count of uttering a threat, and being declared a dangerous offender.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario, per George J.A., dismissed the motion, finding no compelling reason to separate the appeals.

The court emphasized the efficiency and consistency of hearing both appeals together, referencing prior authority and the inefficiency of duplicating review of the trial record.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered by a judge and jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that a properly instructed jury could reasonably conclude that the only reasonable inference from the cumulative effect of the evidence was the appellant's guilt.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by mischaracterizing the appellant's role and failing to give weight to his rehabilitation, despite a positive presentence report.

Considering all circumstances, including fresh evidence, the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to 18 months, recommending consideration for the temporary absence program.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeal was fact-driven, raised no important legal issues, and lacked strong merits.

The applicant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the disposition had been overtaken by a subsequent disposition of the Board.

The court found no pressing issue of law to justify proceeding with the appeal.

The Crown appealed a Summary Conviction Appeal Judge's decision that overturned the accused's conviction for driving 'over 80'.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction.

The Court held that the appeal judge erred in finding that an officer could not form the requisite suspicion for a roadside breath demand under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code based on the smell of alcohol on a driver's breath, affirming R. v. Lindsay.

Furthermore, the trial judge correctly applied the W.D. test by concluding that the accused's 'evidence to the contrary' did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a vicious, unprovoked attack on an innocent victim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was fit and that the trial judge correctly emphasized denunciation and general deterrence without treating the appellant as if he had been convicted of attempted murder.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a large-scale commercial fraud.

On the conviction appeal, the appellant argued that his counsel's waiver of the election caused a miscarriage of justice because the effect of the waiver was not explained to him.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding that counsel had explained the effect of the waiver and the appellant had specifically agreed to give up the right to a preliminary hearing.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by finding a breach of trust as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the trial judge's reference to breach of trust related to the nature of the fraudulent enterprise, which called for general deterrence and denunciation.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment (less 3 months for pre-trial custody) and a DNA order for assault and threatening offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence and DNA order amply justified given the appellant's lengthy criminal record, which included break and enter and criminal harassment.

The court held that the sentence did not offend the jump principle and that specific deterrence was of special significance.

The text of this decision was removed by the publisher due to a Supreme Court of Canada order prohibiting the broadcast or publication of evidence taken at the preliminary inquiry pursuant to section 539(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appellants appealed their sentences, arguing the sentencing judge erred in finding their actions constituted premeditated, planned criminal activity.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding an insufficient basis on the record to support this aggravating circumstance.

Without this finding, the original sentence of a short, sharp term of imprisonment was deemed excessive.

The appeal was allowed and the sentences were varied to time served (9 days) plus probation.

The appellant appealed her conviction for unlawfully importing a controlled substance.

The Crown conceded that the cross-examination of the appellant at trial was improper and impaired her right to a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction for importing a controlled substance, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant abandoned her appeals regarding other charges to which she had pleaded guilty.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered by a summary conviction appeal court judge, who had overturned the respondent's conviction for 'over 80' while having care or control of a motor vehicle.

The respondent had driven her vehicle into a ditch and subsequently consumed more alcohol before police arrived.

The trial judge rejected her evidence of post-offence drinking and found she had care or control of the operable vehicle.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding that the summary conviction appeal judge erred by substituting his own findings of fact regarding care or control and credibility, and by faulting the trial judge's application of the W.D. test.

The conviction and sentence were restored.

The appellant law firm appealed the dismissal of its application to quash a search warrant and declare s. 487 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional regarding law office searches.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 487 is constitutional in respect of law offices provided the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lavallee are followed.

The court also found no evidentiary basis to support the appellant's alternative argument that the Lavallee principles were not complied with in this case.

The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking in a substance held out to be cocaine, extortion, threatening death, and breach of probation, as well as his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility and reliance on the Crown witnesses' evidence.

However, the Crown conceded that the threatening counts should have been stayed as they were subsumed in the extortion count.

The threatening counts were stayed, but the appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the total sentence was upheld.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction and sought leave to appeal sentence.

He argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence concerning hand holding and that reply evidence was improperly admitted.

The court rejected both grounds, finding evidentiary support for the trial judge’s findings and concluding the reply evidence was not strictly collateral and was inconsequential in any event.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence of two years less a day was held to be within the appropriate range.

The appellant challenged both conviction and sentence following a jury trial for assault causing bodily harm.

He argued that the jury charge inadequately addressed the burden on the Crown to disprove accident and that the trial judge improperly prevented the defence from calling five witnesses concerning a later incident involving the complainant.

The court held that the charge made clear that the Crown had to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt and that the jury could not convict if left with a reasonable doubt on accident.

The court also found no prejudice and no reviewable error in the exclusion of the proposed defence evidence.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but both the conviction appeal and sentence appeal were dismissed.

The appellant appealed sentence from a three-year penitentiary term.

The court agreed that a conditional sentence was not appropriate given the nature of the offence, but held that the circumstances of the offence and the offender did not justify a penitentiary term.

Significant weight was given to the appellant's youth, lack of criminal record, the immediate context of the offence, genuine remorse, and fresh evidence showing meaningful rehabilitative progress.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced to two years less a day followed by 18 months' probation, together with a 10-year weapons prohibition order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed a fraud conviction and an 18-month custodial sentence arising from an undisclosed conflict of interest.

The court held that the jury instruction on deprivation was correct and consistent with governing fraud authorities, so the conviction appeal failed.

On sentence, the court declined to substitute a conditional sentence, emphasizing the amount involved, the prolonged conduct, and the breach of trust.

However, the court found inadequate recognition of sentencing disparity with the co-accused and reduced the custodial term to 9 months.

The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted murder and related weapons offences following a jury trial.

He argued that the trial judge erred in the charge to the jury regarding the complainant’s credibility, the burden of proof, a corrective instruction addressing an improper defence comment, and a comment on identification evidence.

The court held that the charge, read as a whole, fairly and adequately presented the defence theory and did not mislead the jury on burden of proof.

The trial judge’s comments were either proper or adequately qualified.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.