Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCA

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence.

On consent, the conviction for permitting the transmission of sexually explicit material to a person under 16 years was quashed.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, and the sentence was varied.

Specifically, the prohibition orders under s. 161(1)(c) and (d) of the Criminal Code were modified, and the duration of the Sexual Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order was reduced from life to 20 years, with the quashed conviction removed from its scope.

The appellant, Darren Pearce, sought leave to appeal a five-year global sentence for aggravated assault and breach of recognizance.

The Court of Appeal granted leave and allowed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge erred by failing to adequately address the principle of parity between Mr. Pearce's sentence and that of his co-accused, Terrance Goodwin, who received a substantially shorter sentence for the same crime.

The court substituted a sentence of "time served," equivalent to approximately three and a half years, to achieve appropriate parity, considering Mr. Pearce's pre-sentence custody and credits.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by the Superior Court of Justice.

Prior to the resolution of the appeal, the appellant died.

Counsel for the appellant filed a Notice of Abatement, and the Court of Appeal ordered the file closed as abated.

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences relating to a residential break-in and theft of firearms.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in denying him standing to challenge a warrantless search of his girlfriend's vehicle, unfairly dismissed his s. 8 Charter challenges and Garofoli application, and erred in finding reasonable grounds for search warrants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge acted unfairly in summarily dismissing the Garofoli application and standing arguments without hearing submissions, no miscarriage of justice occurred because the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference on the basis that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons.

The trial judge had stated she was confident of the appellant's guilt but reserved her reasons to address inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

However, no written or oral reasons for conviction were ever delivered.

The Crown conceded the appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial, finding that the lack of reasons prevented appellate review.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the complainant's evidence regarding the timeline of events and failed to adequately address inconsistencies in her testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the timeline discrepancy went only to the reliability of time estimates rather than core credibility, and that the trial judge had ample corroborating evidence to support his findings.

The appellant, G.W., appealed convictions for multiple sexual offences, arguing that his work schedule and other commitments precluded him from being alone with the child victims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's rejection of this defence, noting that the trial judge had found the appellant's credibility undermined by his attempts to minimize opportunities and that ample opportunity for the offences existed.

The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's factual findings, which were thoroughly grounded in the evidence and owed deference.

The appeal was dismissed.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition regarding a detention order for the appellant.

The appellant challenged two aspects of the Board's decision: (1) whether the Board erred in making a detention order rather than granting some form of discharge, and (2) whether the Board erred in not including a term allowing the appellant to live in community accommodation approved by the hospital.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order but found the Board had misapprehended the hospital's evidence regarding a community living provision and failed to consider that evidence.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of inserting a clause permitting community living in hospital-approved accommodation into the detention order.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 11, 2018, which found that the appellant continues to pose a risk of serious harm to the public and imposed a conditional discharge with reporting requirements and residence restrictions.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no material change in the appellant's condition since the previous disposition and no basis to challenge the Board's conclusion that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated a risk of serious harm if the appellant were released without conditions.

The appellant was convicted of agreeing to offer a bribe to foreign public officials contrary to section 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

As an agent of Cryptometrics Canada, the appellant agreed with other employees to bribe Indian officials to secure a multi-million dollar Air India contract.

The appeal raised three main grounds: lack of territorial jurisdiction, misinterpretation of the word "agree" in the statute, and misapplication of the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule.

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

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 15 years.

He appealed, arguing the trial judge misdirected the jury on the mens rea for murder and the statutory defence of provocation.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by instructing the jury that the narrow statutory definition of provocation applied when considering the impact of the deceased's conduct on the appellant's state of mind for the mens rea inquiry.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

Appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from an Ontario Review Board disposition continuing detention subject to conditions permitting community living.

The appellant argued that the Board’s finding of significant risk to the safety of the community was unsupported by the evidence and therefore unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal held that, although the case was close, the evidence of the treating psychiatrist concerning the risk of a return to fire-setting and threatening behaviour supported the Board’s conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed sexual assault convictions arising from allegations involving children within a family household and argued, among other things, that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to credibility, failed to resolve testimonial inconsistencies, and relied on a critical factual finding without permitting response.

The court held that the reasons disclosed no unbalanced scrutiny, that the trial judge adequately addressed inconsistencies and explained which portions of the evidence were accepted or rejected, and that any inconsistency concerning the timing of a child’s birth was immaterial.

The court also rejected the fresh evidence application because the corrected birthdate would not have affected the trial result.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of his certiorari application seeking to quash a preliminary inquiry committal for second degree murder.

He argued the evidence could support committal only for manslaughter and that the inferences drawn by the preliminary inquiry judge amounted to speculation.

The Court of Appeal held that, at the preliminary inquiry stage, the inference most favourable to the Crown must be drawn and that difficult inferences may still be reasonable.

It found the inferences supporting committal under ss. 21(1) and 21(2) of the Criminal Code were reasonably available given the appellant's conduct, the conduct of his accomplices, and the planning and execution of the robbery.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of robbery, arguing the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the frailties of eyewitness identification evidence and the alibi defence.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the eyewitness identification of two victims who had a brief, stressful encounter with the assailant and provided generic descriptions lacking distinctive features.

The Court of Appeal found the jury instructions deficient, particularly regarding the failure to connect the standard instruction on eyewitness frailties to the specific concerns of the case and the lack of a Hibbert caution regarding in-dock identification.

The convictions were quashed and acquittals entered.

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of three Crown witnesses and that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the unsavoury witnesses.

The Court also rejected the ineffective assistance claim, concluding that the fresh evidence regarding a doctor's appointment would not have altered the verdict or raised a reasonable doubt, and that trial counsel was not incompetent in following the appellant's instructions to proceed without subpoenaing the doctor.

The appellant appealed a committal order and sought judicial review of a surrender order to the United States.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Minister's surrender order, noting that even if the appellant's affidavit was accepted as fresh evidence, it did not afford a basis to remit the issue of surrender to the Minister.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appeal from the committal order was dismissed as abandoned.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered after the trial judge found a section 8 Charter breach regarding a safety search incident to arrest.

The trial judge based this finding on conflicting police evidence about whether the arresting officers were told the respondent was known to carry a gun.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider relevant evidence of the officers' observations at the scene, which could have justified the search.

The Crown appealed an acquittal of the respondent on charges of sexual assault.

The trial judge had withdrawn the case from the jury and entered an acquittal because the Crown failed to explicitly ask the complainant where the incidents occurred, and the trial judge denied the Crown's application to re-open the case to establish territorial jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal found there was sufficient circumstantial evidence that the offences occurred in Ontario.

Furthermore, the trial judge erred in refusing to allow the Crown to re-open its case under the non-controversial exception, as there was no prejudice to the unrepresented accused.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, a young person represented by counsel, sought to waive the reading of charges at his first appearance in youth court.

The justice of the peace refused the waiver and read the charges, asserting a residual discretion to do so.

The appellant's application for certiorari was dismissed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that while a represented young person may waive the reading of charges under s. 12(2) of the Young Offenders Act, the presiding judicial officer retains a residual discretion to order the charges read to ensure the young person understands them and to control the court's process.