Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCA

The appellant was convicted of firearm possession and drug trafficking and appealed both his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal argued that the information to obtain a search warrant (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds, specifically alleging the affiant misled the Justice of the Peace (JP) regarding the appellant's address and failed to establish reasonable grounds for drugs at his residence.

The Court of Appeal found that while the reviewing judge misapprehended one argument, it was immaterial as police observations provided sufficient grounds for the search warrant.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

On the sentence appeal, the Crown conceded credit for time served, and the Court granted enhanced credit (1.5:1) for 145 days, resulting in 217 days credit.

The sentence appeal was allowed.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the global sentence of 15 months' imprisonment for drug trafficking and breach of undertaking, arguing the sentencing judge erred in assessing addiction as a mitigating factor.

The Court of Appeal found no legal error, clarifying that the sentencing judge's finding was factual and that addiction was properly weighed against aggravating factors, including the commercial motive, repeat offending, and breach of release conditions.

The Court upheld the sentence, finding it within the appropriate range and that a conditional sentence was insufficient for denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant, a dual status dangerous offender under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board, appealed the Board's decision declining a placement hearing and affirming his detention in a penitentiary over a maximum-secure forensic hospital.

The Board found the penitentiary placement appropriate given the appellant's extreme risk of re-offence, supported by uncontradicted expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, emphasizing that a court-imposed penitentiary sentence takes precedence for dual status offenders and that the Board's paramount responsibility is public safety.

The appeal was dismissed as the Board's findings were reasonable and amply supported by the record.

The appellant, Detour Gold Corporation, brought an unopposed motion for leave to file a five-page reply factum.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, using the opportunity to critique the current appellate rules that necessitate such motions.

The judge advocated for an automatic right to file brief reply factums to enhance written advocacy, improve judicial preparation, and reduce unnecessary litigation costs, highlighting a procedural gap in both civil and criminal appellate rules.

The appellant appealed convictions for multiple drug and firearm offences, alleging the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for dismissing a Charter motion and misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons adequate, noting no obligation to reconcile every inconsistency, only those relevant to the Charter application.

While conceding a misapprehension regarding the location of the appellant's wallet, the court determined it had no impact on the verdicts due to overwhelming evidence of possession, including a padlock code found in the appellant's wallet connecting him directly to contraband.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to 14 offences, including possession of stolen vehicles, operating while prohibited, failing to stop for police, drug trafficking, and firearm offences, and received a global sentence of 46 months.

He appealed the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider mitigating factors (specifically, his guilty pleas), that the sentence was not properly individualized (lack of counselling order), and that the reasons for sentence were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge did acknowledge the guilty pleas, that the individualization argument lacked support due to no submissions on counselling, and that the reasons were sufficient when read in context.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the 'step six' procedure for challenging search warrants based on confidential informant information, arguing it infringed the right to full answer and defence under s. 7 of the Charter.

The appellant also argued the search warrant was invalid as the information to obtain (ITO) was not credible, compelling, and corroborated.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the 'step six' procedure appropriately balances the accused's Charter rights with the need to protect confidential informants, and that the warrant was properly issued based on sufficiently credible, compelling, and corroborated information.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder following a fatal stabbing in his apartment building.

He argued the trial judge erred by admitting his statement to police as voluntary, alleging an oppressive atmosphere and improper inducements, and by providing an inadequate jury instruction on self-defence regarding his role as the initial aggressor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the police conduct was not oppressive and the trial judge's jury instructions correctly equipped the jury to assess the reasonableness of the appellant's actions in self-defence.

The respondent was found not criminally responsible in 2008 and held under detention orders until the Ontario Review Board granted a conditional discharge in 2019.

The hospital appealed, supported by the Crown, arguing the Board's majority reasons failed to explain how public safety would be protected given the respondent's history of rapid decompensation and recent involuntary admissions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing, finding the Board's reasons inadequate to justify the disposition.

The appellant was convicted of importing cocaine, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to import cocaine after a controlled delivery of a package containing over 3.5 kilograms of cocaine.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, misapplied the law on importing and post-offence conduct, and rendered an unreasonable verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge made minor factual errors, they were not essential to the convictions given the overwhelming circumstantial evidence of guilt, including the appellant's possession of shipping details, phone records, and flight from police.

The appellant appealed a December 13, 2017 disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a general forensic unit of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton.

However, while under that order, the appellant escaped and was subsequently ordered detained in a secure unit by a Board disposition dated September 18, 2018.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal from the 2017 disposition to be moot, as it had been replaced by the more restrictive 2018 disposition based on changed circumstances.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal and dismissed it.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual exploitation and a one-year custodial sentence arising from a sexual relationship with a complainant who was under 18 while he was privately tutoring her.

The court held that the trial judge properly applied the position-of-trust analysis under s. 153(1) of the Criminal Code and did not improperly equate the appellant's role to that of a formal schoolteacher.

The court also rejected the submission that the trial judge applied different standards of scrutiny to the appellant and the complainant, finding that the complainant's evidence had been adequately tested and the credibility findings were entitled to deference.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed because the aggravating features justified a one-year term of imprisonment.

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

The appellant argued that the Board failed to address two Charter applications, misapprehended the evidence, and erred in refusing a conditional discharge.

The court held that the Charter applications were unsupported by particulars or sought remedies beyond the Board's jurisdiction or irrelevant to the annual review, found no material misapprehension of evidence, and concluded that continued detention was adequately supported by the Board's reasons.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent was convicted at trial based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court (SCAC) ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge failed to consider a second police officer's evidence regarding the respondent's broken zipper, which the SCAC judge believed supported the respondent's alibi.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the SCAC judge, not the trial judge, had misapprehended the evidence.

The trial judge had properly considered the evidence and rejected the alibi.

The convictions were restored.

The appellant was convicted of production, conspiracy to produce, and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking in connection with two rural grow operations.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay evidence from a Ministry of Transportation database, admitting real estate documents protected by solicitor-client privilege, and failing to exclude search evidence obtained under invalid general warrants pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant also argued the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the admission of the evidence and concluding that the cumulative circumstantial evidence reasonably supported the convictions.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and firearms offences, as well as his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the robbery conviction, finding the verdict was not unreasonable.

However, the Court found the trial judge failed to establish to the criminal standard that the weapon used was a firearm.

Consequently, the firearms convictions were set aside and substituted with convictions for use and possession of an imitation firearm.

The appellant's sentence was reduced from five-and-a-half years to five years.

The appellant appealed a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision that set aside her acquittal.

The appellant argued her s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached because she misunderstood her right to contact her own lawyer rather than duty counsel at the roadside.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that an unexpressed desire to speak to one's own lawyer, which is not conveyed to the investigating officer, cannot result in a s. 10(b) breach.

The appellant appealed convictions for counselling and mischief.

The Crown conceded that the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed on the counselling charge without a proper election, rendering that conviction a nullity.

The Court of Appeal quashed the counselling conviction, leaving the Crown to decide whether to proceed de novo.

The appeal regarding the mischief conviction was dismissed for lack of merit.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving causing death, arguing that the trial judge's interventions during the defence expert's testimony raised a reasonable apprehension of bias and that the judge misapprehended the defence theory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the judge's interventions were appropriate in a judge-alone trial involving highly technical evidence and that the judge correctly understood and rejected the defence theory.

The conviction was upheld.

The appellant, acting in person, appealed his conviction for taking his child in contravention of a custody order, contrary to s. 282(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and sought leave to appeal his sentence regarding probation terms.

The appellant had failed to return the child after an access visit and took her to another province.

On appeal, amicus curiae argued the trial judge erred by not leaving the defences of colour of right and imminent harm to the jury, by misdirecting the jury on 'taking' versus 'detaining', and by imposing probation conditions restricting civil litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the proposed defences, applying the curative proviso for any jury instruction error, and upholding the probation conditions as reasonable given the appellant's history of vexatious litigation.