Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCA

The appellant was convicted of 33 counts of voyeurism based on video recordings found on a USB device seized from a safe in his condominium.

He appealed, challenging the validity of the warrant authorizing the search of the safes.

The application judge had found that the information to obtain disclosed sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuing justice's conclusion that a digital storage device would be found in the safes and would afford evidence of the offences under investigation.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge made no extricable legal error, as his findings were rooted in the evidence and reflected permissible common-sense reasoning rather than speculation or impermissible propensity reasoning.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual interference against two children under the age of 16 years.

The trial judge found that the appellant had committed sexual offences against both complainants in a park in Brantford on a single occasion in August 2019, and that he had also sexually abused one complainant over an extended period in the family home prior to the park incident.

The appellant was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on three grounds: alleged errors in the W.(D.) analysis, uneven scrutiny of evidence, and misapprehension of DNA evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a choking charge, arguing the trial judge erred in handling the complainant's prior inconsistent statement.

The trial judge had acquitted due to doubts about the complainant's reliability.

The Court of Appeal found no material error in the trial judge's use of the statement, noting it was used for inconsistency, not for the truth of its contents.

The court also highlighted that the Crown did not take steps at trial to address the inconsistencies.

Furthermore, the trial judge had multiple independent reasons for doubting the complainant's reliability, including memory issues, drug/alcohol consumption, and inconsistencies regarding alleged injuries.

The appeal was dismissed as the Crown failed to meet the threshold for appellate intervention.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for prior offences, appealed a 2019 Ontario Review Board disposition that continued his conditional discharge and imposed new alcohol and drug testing requirements.

The appellant argued the Board erred in its application of the significant threat test and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's determination that the appellant posed a significant threat was not supported by the evidence and lacked proper analysis regarding the degree of risk or gravity of apprehended harm.

The court emphasized that factors such as lack of insight, potential medication non-compliance, or substance abuse do not automatically establish a significant threat without specific analysis of the risk of serious criminal conduct.

The appeal was allowed, and an absolute discharge was granted, although the issue was rendered moot by a subsequent 2020 Board decision granting an absolute discharge.

The appellant, James McCullough, appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and committing an indignity to a human body.

He admitted to killing and dismembering the victim but claimed it was a reaction to a sexual advance and not planned or deliberate.

The appeal raised two main issues: the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury on post-offence conduct and the admission of evidence regarding his desire to commit cannibalism and rap lyrics.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's handling of post-offence conduct evidence, as it was relevant to planning and deliberation and alternative explanations were presented to the jury.

The court also upheld the admission of the cannibalism ideation and rap lyrics, finding their probative value on issues of motive, intention, and planning outweighed their prejudicial effect, especially with proper limiting instructions.

The accused appealed his conviction for attempted murder, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting improper opinion evidence from a 911 dispatcher and a homicide detective, and in admitting hearsay evidence from the complainant to EMS personnel.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in allowing opinion evidence on the accused's credibility and demeanour, and in admitting the complainant's out-of-court statements as hearsay that did not meet necessity and reliability requirements.

The court rejected applying the curative proviso, finding the errors were not trivial and the Crown's case, while strong, was not overwhelming.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed convictions for two counts each of sexual assault and sexual interference against the daughters of his former girlfriend, alleging numerous errors in the trial judge’s credibility assessments.

He argued that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny between the complainants’ testimony and his own, misapprehended evidence, improperly relied on demeanour, and failed to properly consider delayed disclosure and alleged motives to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge’s credibility findings were well supported by the evidentiary record and entitled to significant deference.

The court found no misapprehension of evidence, no improper reliance on demeanour, and no reversible error in the treatment of delayed disclosure or similar fact evidence.

The verdicts were not unreasonable and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, Clara Eva Boros, sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's order to surrender her to Romania for extradition.

The Minister's decision regarding the significant delay in the extradition process, spanning over 18 years, was found to be unreasonable due to a lack of transparent investigation into when Romanian authorities became aware of the applicant's presence in Canada and an insufficient explanation for the delay on the Canadian side.

The Court of Appeal allowed the application, remitting the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration with specific directions for further inquiry and explanation regarding the delays.

The appellant, A.G., appealed convictions for assault causing bodily harm and the imposed sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge reasonably inferred the appellant's participation and encouragement in the assault as a joint principal, noting common participation in a continuing event.

The court also upheld the sentence, concluding that the appellant's failure to plead guilty and express contrition, unlike co-accused, justified a more onerous sentence.

Both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction from a judge alone trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The trial judge provided extensive and thorough reasons addressing the issues raised on appeal.

The case turned on an assessment of credibility.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's rejection of collusion allegations against Crown witnesses and objected to the use of notes created subsequent to the events.

The appellant also raised the issue of being denied a legal aid certificate and proceeding without counsel at trial.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's approach and no demonstrated unfairness in the trial proceedings.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for 15 offences including criminal negligence causing death, fail to remain at the scene of a collision, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The appellant abandoned his appeal against conviction.

On the sentence appeal, the court found that while the trial judge erred in considering lack of remorse as an aggravating factor, this error was inconsequential given the numerous other aggravating factors, particularly the appellant's extensive criminal record for similar offences.

The court upheld the sentence as fit but clarified that the s. 743.6 parole eligibility order applied only to the criminal negligence conviction, not the entire sentence, and set aside the victim fine surcharge.

The appellants were convicted of offences arising from a residential break-in involving assault and property damage.

They appealed on four grounds: conflict of interest of trial counsel for one appellant, erroneous evidentiary rulings regarding prior inconsistent statements, reliance on inadmissible identification and hearsay evidence, and trial proceedings conducted in the absence of one appellant.

The Crown conceded all grounds of appeal and acknowledged that a miscarriage of justice occurred due to cumulative legal errors and the conflict of interest.

The appellate court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial, expressing trust that the Crown would exercise discretion to enter a stay of proceedings.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 6, 2018.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge from a detention order, arguing that the proposed conditional discharge terms would provide equivalent public protection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but allowed it in part, finding that while the Board's refusal to order a conditional discharge was reasonable and supported by evidence, the Board had erred by failing to remove the 24-hour supervision requirement from the disposition.

The court amended the disposition to remove this phrase, allowing the appellant to continue his transition to less supervised community living.

The appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm and his 12-month conditional sentence including eight months of house arrest.

The appeal raised three grounds: the validity of the search warrant, the admissibility of utterances made upon arrest, and jury instruction discrepancies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's validation of the search warrant, no error in admitting the spontaneous and voluntary utterances despite a Charter breach under section 9, and no legal error in the jury instructions.

The court upheld the conditional sentence as appropriate given the serious nature of the offence and the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated October 2, 2017.

The appellant, declared not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, challenged three aspects of the Board's decision: (1) the finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety; (2) the Board's failure to consider a conditional discharge; and (3) the wording of condition 4(f) of the disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's findings on the first two issues but amended condition 4(f) to clarify the Board's intention regarding restrictions on the appellant's attendance at locations where children under 14 are present.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant challenged the grounds for his arrest and the basis for issuance of a search warrant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's application of the Debot criteria, finding ample basis for both the arrest and warrant based on police surveillance evidence.

The trial judge made no errors in sentencing or in calculating pre-trial custody.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention on a General Forensic Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with the ability to live in community accommodation approved by the person in charge of CAMH.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that an absolute discharge was not appropriate given clear evidence that the appellant would stop taking medication, decompensate quickly, and engage in threatening and aggressive behaviour.

The court also rejected the argument that a conditional discharge was the least restrictive appropriate order, finding that the detention order with community living possibilities was reasonable given the appellant's homelessness and ongoing risk of harm.

The appellant appealed a long-term offender (LTO) designation imposed following his conviction for aggravated assault, weapons dangerous, and breach of probation.

The appellant had stabbed a victim six times on a subway platform.

The trial judge sentenced him to four years and one day imprisonment with a concurrent sentence for breach of probation, and imposed an LTO designation with a seven-year supervision order.

The appellant raised three issues: insufficient reasons regarding the interpretation of "substantial risk that the offender will reoffend," misapplication of the statutory test, and failure to consider discretion not to make an LTO designation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence supported the LTO designation.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 20, 2016.

The hospital had recommended a conditional discharge, but the Board imposed a detention order with conditions.

The appellant challenged the Board's decision on multiple grounds, including the refusal to order a conditional discharge and the failure to order a second opinion or independent assessment in light of a potential treatment impasse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's reasoning regarding the appellant's non-compliance with essential drug treatment and the requirement for hospital-approved residence.

The appellant appealed his global sentence of 9 years for armed robbery of a bank, possession of a prohibited firearm, possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, and failure to comply with a youth sentence.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to consider his youth when imposing a consecutive sentence, failed to inquire into his ability to pay a restitution order, and erred in stating he possessed three guns instead of two.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge adequately considered the appellant's youth and ability to pay, and that the factual error regarding the number of guns did not affect the fitness of the global sentence.