Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCA

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder and related offences for firing shots at a female acquaintance, striking her twice.

The sole issues at trial were the identity of the shooter and intent to kill.

The trial judge rejected direct identification evidence and limited-weight photo identification evidence, instead relying almost entirely on circumstantial evidence including GPS data from the suspect vehicle, security camera footage with timestamps, and DNA evidence.

The appellant appealed on the grounds that the trial judge erred in accepting the accuracy of security camera timestamps without proper authentication and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no legal error in the trial judge's application of the law regarding measurement devices in common usage and concluding that the verdict was reasonable based on the totality of the circumstantial evidence.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from an Ontario Review Board disposition maintaining a detention order for a not criminally responsible accused.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible in 2016 for threats and assault involving an airsoft rifle, had been conditionally discharged in 2020 but returned to detention in 2023.

The Board maintained the detention order based on the appellant's chronic cannabis addiction and the treating psychiatrist's opinion that continued use would create a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable and that it failed to meaningfully consider less restrictive dispositions.

The court ordered a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The appellant, R.M., appealed convictions for attempted abduction of his son and assault of another boy.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the actus reus of attempted abduction by failing to apply s. 24(2) of the Criminal Code, which designates this as a question of law for the judge.

The court quashed the attempted abduction conviction and substituted it with a conviction for unlawful confinement, lifting the conditional stay on that charge.

The appeal against the assault conviction was dismissed, as were arguments regarding unlawful confinement jury instructions.

The appellant, Brent William Diehl, appealed his conviction for sexual assault with a weapon, arguing that the trial judge relied on myths and stereotypes in assessing credibility and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's analysis, which correctly applied the principles of credibility assessment and reasonable doubt, and did not engage in stereotypical reasoning or uneven scrutiny.

The trial judge's assessment of the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable, and the appellant's account as illogical, was upheld.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of two respondents, Kalenda Kalonji and Sam Donaldson, on firearm and drug-related charges.

The trial judge had quashed a search warrant for a residence, finding no reasonable and probable grounds to believe firearms would be found there, and excluded the seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in her s. 8 Charter analysis by failing to consider reasonable common sense inferences that firearms would be kept at a person's residence, effectively elevating the standard of proof for issuing a warrant.

This error led to the improper exclusion of evidence.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittals, and ordered a new trial for both respondents.

The appellant, convicted of six counts related to handgun possession, appealed his 38-month sentence.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by imposing a sentence greater than the Crown's proposal without notice and by refusing sufficient credit for restrictive house arrest (Downes credit).

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge misapprehended the Crown's position and committed an error in principle by exceeding the Crown's proposed sentence without allowing further submissions.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to 36 months, incorporating pre-sentence custody and Downes credit.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing an error in the calculation of his pre-trial custody credit.

The Crown conceded the appeal, acknowledging that the parties made a mathematical error at trial.

The Court of Appeal granted leave, allowed the appeal, and reduced the appellant's sentence by 257 days.

Police officers sued Crown Attorneys for negligent legal advice provided during a "Mr. Big" undercover investigation that led to the plaintiff's arrest and eventual acquittal.

The police crossclaimed against the Crown Attorneys for contribution and indemnity.

The Court of Appeal held that prosecutorial immunity barred the crossclaim and that Crown Attorneys do not owe a duty of care to police in respect of legal advice provided.

The court emphasized the separate and independent roles of police and Crown Attorneys in the administration of justice and rejected arguments that immunity should not apply to pre-charge conduct or claims by police.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and sexual interference.

The trial judge found that the appellant had sexually assaulted a 15-year-old complainant at a property he owned, holding a knife to her throat and forcing her to perform fellatio.

The appellant's defence relied on a medical condition affecting his genitals and a theory of innocent secondary transfer of semen.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of credibility, treatment of DNA evidence, or application of the collateral fact rule.

The appellant was convicted at trial on three counts of trafficking in fentanyl and three counts of knowingly using a forged document.

The charges related to his alleged participation in a scheme to obtain and use forged prescriptions for fentanyl patches.

The central issue at trial was identity—whether the appellant himself attended at the pharmacy to have the prescription filled or whether someone falsely presented himself as the appellant.

The trial judge accepted the evidence of a co-conspirator that the appellant participated in the scheme and rejected the appellant's claim that his health card had been lost or stolen.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's failure to assist him as a self-represented accused and claimed misapprehension of evidence.

The Court of Appeal found the trial was fair but allowed the appeal with respect to one trafficking count where there was insufficient evidence.

The applicant was convicted of two counts of careless storage of a firearm/ammunition, two counts of possession of a firearm/ammunition unauthorized, possession of a firearm knowing, possession as the occupant of a vehicle, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and possession of a Schedule 1 substance for the purpose of trafficking.

He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment less time served.

The applicant appealed both conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the defence's alternate suspect theory regarding a third party present in the vehicle at the time of arrest.

The motion judge granted bail pending appeal, finding that the grounds of appeal were not frivolous and that the applicant's history of bail compliance supported release.

The appellant was convicted of various drug offences and possession of proceeds of crime.

On appeal, he challenged the trial judge's decision to dismiss his application to exclude evidence obtained through a search warrant, arguing that the information to obtain the warrant (ITO) was insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds that evidence would be found at the specified residence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the information provided by confidential sources regarding the appellant's drug trafficking activities was sufficiently corroborated and that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in finding reasonable and probable grounds to issue the warrant.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated January 26, 2018 (amended February 26, 2018).

The appellant challenged the Board's order regarding his detention and conditions.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's decision fell within the range of reasonable orders having regard to the totality of evidence and the Board's expertise.

The treating psychiatrist's concerns about the appellant's lack of initiative in addressing medical needs and absence of insight into his condition supported the Board's order to maintain hospital oversight to prevent the appellant from disengaging from treatment and presenting a significant risk of serious harm to the public.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of operating a vessel over 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood causing bodily harm following a boating accident on Lake Muskoka.

She appealed on the grounds that evidence was obtained in violation of her Charter rights.

The trial judge found violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter but admitted the hospital records containing blood-alcohol analysis while excluding the blood samples themselves.

The Court of Appeal (majority) upheld the convictions, finding that while Charter breaches occurred, the cumulative effect did not warrant exclusion of the hospital records under section 24(2).

Justice Pardu dissented, arguing the hospital records should be excluded due to the serious invasion of bodily integrity and dignity.

The appellant appealed both his conviction and sentence for trafficking in fentanyl and using a forged prescription.

The conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence of identity.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty of three counts of using a forged document and three counts of trafficking in fentanyl, sentencing him to six years imprisonment less eighteen months credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable because the evidence was insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and that another person could have impersonated him using fake identification.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence of identity was sufficient and that the trial judge properly applied the legal standard for convictions based on circumstantial evidence.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the six-year sentence was fit and proportionate to the appellant's role in the trafficking ring.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition to the United States and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order.

The appellant challenged the reliability of co-conspirator evidence and argued that extradition would violate his Charter rights under sections 6(1) and 7.

The Court of Appeal upheld the committal and dismissed the judicial review application, finding that the reliability of witness evidence is a matter for the receiving jurisdiction, that the possible sentence would not shock the conscience, and that the Minister's decision to defer to US proceedings was reasonable and justified under the Cotroni factors.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 13, 2016.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) the Board failed to apply the Winko test in concluding the appellant remains a significant threat to public safety and failed to order an absolute discharge; (2) the Board erred in failing to order a conditional discharge; and (3) conditions should be amended to allow community living in Brockville rather than North Bay due to North Bay's inability to receive the appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the first two grounds but allowed the appeal on the third ground, permitting the appellant to live in approved community accommodation in Brockville.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence following convictions on four counts of sexual abuse and a 30-month custodial sentence.

On the conviction appeal, he argued the trial judge failed to reconcile inconsistencies in the evidence relating to the sexual assault count and that this undermined the broader credibility findings.

The court held the trial judge was alive to the alleged inconsistencies and found no inconsistency that would vitiate the conviction on count 9.

The sentence was held to be well within the acceptable range.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately address inconsistencies in the Crown witnesses' evidence and erred in applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework by not following its exact order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that trial judges are not required to answer every argument raised by counsel, provided the reasons clearly explain the result.

The Court further held that W.(D.) does not mandate a strict, pre-ordained order for assessing evidence, but rather ensures the proper application of the burden of proof when an accused testifies.

The young person appealed their convictions for sexual assault and carrying a concealed weapon, as well as the sentence imposed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's appreciation of the identification evidence or in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal on the concealed weapon charge.

However, the Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in applying s. 39(1)(d) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Given the time already spent in custody, house arrest, and community service, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence to time served and striking out the probation order.