Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCA

The appellant, S.M., appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge erred by misapprehending the complainant's evidence regarding her alleged financial motive to fabricate and by failing to properly consider the implausibility of the assaults given the proximity of sleeping children.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge and concluding that the trial judge adequately addressed the implausibility argument.

The court affirmed the trial judge's entitlement to believe the complainant's testimony.

The appellant, Michael John William Ball, appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, challenging the trial judge's jury charge on two grounds: the standard of proof regarding the cause of death and the adequacy of the Vetrovec warning for an unsavoury witness.

He also argued that the trial judge erred in handling the jury's request to review expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors.

The court concluded that the jury charge, when considered holistically, adequately equipped the jury, and the Vetrovec warning fulfilled its purpose.

Furthermore, the trial judge's decision to cease playback of expert testimony upon the jury's indication that their questions were resolved was deemed a reasonable exercise of discretion, as the reviewed evidence was uncontroversial and did not require further contextualization.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed convictions for various criminal offences, arguing that he was entrapped by police.

The trial judge had previously found him guilty of 11 counts, staying 3 on entrapment grounds, and convicting on 8.

The appeal specifically challenged 5 of the remaining 8 convictions, alleging errors in the trial judge's analysis of both the "opportunity" and "inducement" branches of the entrapment test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's application of entrapment law, including her assessment of police conduct and the appellant's independent actions in committing the offences.

The appellant, Kevin Bacchus, appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, stemming from a physical altercation with the complainant.

The appeal raised three grounds: unreasonable verdict, misapprehension of evidence, and error in the use of an audio recording.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, affirming the trial judge's findings.

The court reiterated the high bar for unreasonable verdicts under the Beaudry/Sinclair error and found the alleged misapprehensions immaterial.

The sentence appeal was abandoned.

The appellant, Jasper Atienza, appealed his conviction for first-degree murder.

He raised three grounds of appeal concerning the trial judge's jury instructions: (1) whether the evidence showed only one vehicle at the shooting scene; (2) the probative value of post-offence association with co-accused Laurie Phan regarding planning and deliberation; and (3) inferring guilt from his failure to disclose his destination when leaving an apartment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions.

The court affirmed the trial judge's discretion in reviewing evidence, noting the weakness of the two-car theory and that Ms. Phan's acquittal rendered any potential error regarding post-offence association harmless as it negated a joint planning theory.

The court also found no prejudice from the brief reference to the appellant's undisclosed destination.

The appellant was convicted of possessing child pornography.

The appeal challenged the sufficiency of grounds for a search warrant, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) did not establish reasonable grounds for drug trafficking evidence at his apartment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the warrant could have been issued based on the totality of circumstances, including a credible and compelling confidential informant tip corroborated by police investigation and property manager information, despite some deficiencies in the ITO.

The appellant, Garey Harris, appealed his convictions for weapons and drug trafficking offences, arguing errors in the application judge's Charter decisions (ss. 8 and 9) and the trial judge's instructions to the jury.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the Charter arguments, upholding the finding that police had reasonable grounds for arrest and that the search warrant was valid, with only a minor, non-prejudicial Charter breach regarding police remaining in the unit.

However, the Court found that the trial judge erred in jury instructions by potentially removing a legitimate defence from the jury's consideration, specifically regarding competing inferences of control over the seized items due to the presence of other individuals connected to the unit.

This error jeopardized the appellant's right to a fair trial.

The appeal was allowed in part, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The Crown appealed an acquittal for voyeurism.

The trial and summary conviction appeal judges excluded evidence (a hidden camera) found in an Airbnb apartment, ruling that the apartment owner (accused) had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and police actions violated his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal found that the accused, as the apartment owner, did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment while it was rented to the complainant.

The complainant was entitled to invite police to investigate a crime committed against him in the apartment.

The hidden camera was properly seized under the Criminal Code.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, admitted the evidence, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant, Salvatore Lamacchia, appealed an eight-year global sentence for two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and breach of recognizance.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to consider the totality principle and did not give sufficient weight to his community work.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge was alert to the totality principle and properly balanced aggravating and mitigating factors, including the appellant's community work.

The court reiterated the high standard for appellate intervention in sentencing.

The appellant appealed a sentence of two years less a day for firearm offences, which arose from an incident where he intended to commit suicide with a sawed-off shotgun.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by placing undue emphasis on denunciation and deterrence without adequately considering the appellant's suicidal intent and the attenuated danger to the public.

The court also found an error in failing to consider the causal link between the appellant's mental health issues and addiction and his criminal conduct.

Given the appellant's significant rehabilitation efforts, the court substituted the custodial sentence with a conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference and sexual assault of his stepdaughter, alleging errors by the trial judge regarding the admission of post-incident evidence, the Crown's closing submission, and the exclusion of photographs under s. 8 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in any of the grounds, upholding the trial judge's decisions on the high probative value of the post-incident evidence, the acceptable latitude of the Crown's closing given no objection, and the s. 8 ruling that the daughter was an independent actor.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Andrew Bielli, appealed his conviction for possession of proceeds of crime for the benefit of a criminal organization.

The case centered on a police ruse designed to search the appellant and his vehicle without disclosing the true nature of the investigation, leading to the seizure of evidence.

The application judge found breaches of the appellant's Charter rights under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2), finding no s. 8 or s. 9 breach and police good faith.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in concluding there was a de facto arrest, thus finding a s. 8 breach.

The Court also found errors in the s. 24(2) analysis, particularly regarding the police's good faith and reliance on prior case law, as the Charter violations were planned and deliberate.

The Court concluded that the impugned evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant, Alexander Sangster, appealed convictions for multiple firearm and assault offences, and a global sentence of seven years and seven months.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings regarding the reasonable expectation of privacy for a guest and the validity of consent to search, and finding no material misapprehension of evidence.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal based on fresh evidence demonstrating the appellant's significant rehabilitative progress while in custody and on bail, substituting the sentence to time served.

The appellant appealed her convictions and sentence for possession of heroin and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of methamphetamine.

The drugs were found during a search of her apartment, which she shared with her boyfriend.

The trial judge found she had knowledge and control of the drugs based on her presence, text messages, and surveillance evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge made no error in principle in imposing a two-year sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for theft under $5,000.

He had entered a bank, passed a note demanding money, and left with $600.

After a directed verdict dismissed a robbery charge, he pled guilty to the included offence of theft.

On appeal, he argued there was an insufficient factual basis for the conviction and that his sentence should have been reduced to six months to avoid collateral immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the elements of theft were met.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge had properly considered the immigration consequences but concluded a 12-month sentence was fit and proportionate.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to stop at the scene of an accident, as well as a stayed charge of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

The charges arose from the appellant's deliberate use of his vehicle to dislodge a person hanging from the passenger side door.

The Court of Appeal upheld all convictions, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility, his inferences regarding vehicle speed and the appellant's knowledge of running over the victim, or his rejection of necessity and self-defence arguments.

The court also upheld the sentencing decision regarding the driving suspension.

The appellant was charged with operating a motor vehicle without insurance contrary to the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

He was convicted in absentia at trial and his conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, a statutory declaration from an insurance company employee established that the vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance at the time of the alleged offence.

The Crown conceded that the statutory declaration was admissible evidence and that it proved the appellant did not commit the offence.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and an acquittal entered.

The appellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm and related offences following a jury trial and sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

The sole issue at trial was identification.

The appellant appealed from conviction and requested leave to appeal sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge's charge on eyewitness identification evidence was adequate given the strength of the circumstantial evidence, and that the trial judge had vetted the charge with counsel.

The court also found that photo line-up evidence had no probative value as witnesses could not identify the fleeing passenger, and that the surveillance video instruction was adequate.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was dismissed, as the trial judge had imposed the minimum sentence for very serious offences and had not disregarded pre-sentence custody or house arrest bail.

The appellant appealed a sentence of 20 months imposed by the trial judge for his involvement in a commercial conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding that the trial judge properly considered all relevant sentencing factors, including the commercial nature of the enterprise and the appellant's level of involvement.

The court also found that the trial judge adequately considered the parity principle in distinguishing the appellant's sentence from that of a co-conspirator who received 30 months.

The applicant sought an order directing a court reporter to produce appeal transcripts at the copy rate of $0.55 per page, rather than the original rate of $3.75 per page, because the transcripts had already been produced for the trial.

The court granted the motion, applying the Court Services Division policy that balances access to justice with fair compensation for court reporters, and ordered that the copy rate applies to previously transcribed portions.