Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCA

The appellant, Steven Browne, sought leave to appeal a 14-year sentence imposed following guilty pleas to attempted murder with a firearm and discharging a firearm with intent to wound.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by exceeding the Crown's suggested range and by failing to give adequate credit for collateral consequences (Suter factors), disadvantaged background (Morris factors), and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan factors).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or unfitness in the sentence, and that the sentencing judge properly considered the relevant factors without disproportionately reducing the sentence.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental illness, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition maintaining his detention at a high-security psychiatric facility.

The appellant argued the ORB failed to consider all statutory factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, recognize a treatment impasse, and exercise its inquisitorial and supervisory powers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable.

The court held that the ORB properly considered all relevant factors, reasonably declined to find a treatment impasse given the facility's ongoing efforts to find treatment options, and adequately fulfilled its supervisory responsibilities.

K.K. sought bail pending his appeal of sexual offence convictions involving minor complainants.

The appeal grounds included claims that his guilty pleas were involuntary due to the trial judge's erroneous discharge of counsel and denial of an adjournment, leading to pressure to plead guilty while unrepresented.

The Court of Appeal granted bail, finding the appeal was "not frivolous" and that K.K.'s surrender could be assured with appropriate conditions.

The court also determined that detention was not necessary in the public interest, considering K.K.'s compliance with previous release terms and the ability of strict bail conditions to mitigate public safety concerns.

The applicant applied for bail pending appeal pursuant to s. 679 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant had previously been convicted and his appeal was dismissed, but he subsequently applied to re-open his appeal against conviction to adduce fresh evidence.

Because the formal order dismissing the appeal had not been entered, the court was not functus officio and permitted the application to re-open to proceed.

The motion judge held that the original notice of appeal remained operative, granting jurisdiction under s. 679(1)(a) to consider and grant the applicant's request for bail.

Benham Yaali sought leave to appeal a 13-year sentence for manslaughter, arguing the sentencing judge erred by considering handgun possession as an aggravating factor and by failing to properly account for provocation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, upholding the sentencing judge's discretion in weighing factors.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed, except for setting aside the victim impact surcharge.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering continued detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment in 2003, challenged the Board's decision to maintain his detention, arguing the Board failed to consider statutory factors regarding reintegration into society and other needs, and failed to exercise the constant vigilance required for long-term detainees with non-violent index offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had adequately considered all relevant factors and that the evidence reasonably supported the conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated October 31, 2016.

The appeal was dismissed.

An addendum was issued after the reasons were prepared and signed, noting that counsel for the appellant subsequently provided the reasons for a ruling of July 31, 2014, which stayed the criminal harassment charge.

The trial judge's reasons, which detailed the evidence including the effect on the victim and the appellant's assessment under the Mental Health Act, were acknowledged by counsel to undermine many of the arguments made during the appeal, though the court found these reasons did not change the basis for dismissing the appeal.

The appellant, detained under the Ontario Review Board for over 30 years, appealed the Board's disposition continuing his detention at St. Joseph's Healthcare.

He argued the Board erred in refusing an adjournment, relying on hearsay evidence, failing to address his sleep deprivation, and refusing a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the adjournment issue moot and no basis to interfere with the Board's substantive decisions, though it noted the Board erred in its approach to the adjournment request and urged it to address the sleep deprivation issue at the next review.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault, seeking to introduce fresh evidence and alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

He also argued the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to credibility and misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's assessment fair and balanced, the fresh evidence incapable of affecting the verdict, and trial counsel's performance competent.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.

On appeal, he argued that his right to be present at his trial was violated when the trial judge held private, unrecorded conversations with prospective jurors during jury selection.

He also challenged the admission of statements made to undercover officers during a 'Mr. Big' operation.

The Court of Appeal held that while the private conversations were part of the trial and the appellant had a right to hear them, the procedural error caused no prejudice and was cured by the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iv) of the Criminal Code.

The evidentiary ground was also dismissed based on binding precedent.

The appellant appealed his conviction for fraud on the public, arguing the trial judge provided inadequate reasons, failed to instruct herself on the dangers of unconfirmed evidence, and rendered inconsistent verdicts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's decision rested on independent evidence establishing the appellant's intent to defraud by inflating revenue figures.

The court also found the verdicts were not inconsistent, as the fraudulent intent was formed after the loans were made but before the public relied on the false financial statements.

The Crown's appeal of the acquittals was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 24 months' imprisonment for break, enter, and theft.

The sentencing judge had rejected a joint submission of 9 months, relying on the appellant's record and the mistaken belief that a stolen computer containing sentimental data was irretrievably lost.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in law by rejecting the joint submission without adequately considering the Crown's evidentiary concerns and relying on unproven aggravating facts.

The appeal was allowed, the sentence was reduced to time served (10 months and 10 days), and a probation condition prohibiting drug and alcohol consumption was removed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and his sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.

On the conviction appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in a Corbett application by admitting his 28-year-old manslaughter conviction after finding defence counsel attacked the arresting officer's character.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the Corbett test.

On the sentence appeal, the Crown conceded the 10-year sentence was outside the appropriate range.

The Court allowed the sentence appeal and reduced the sentence to 5 years' imprisonment.

The appellant was sentenced for a breach of the Environmental Protection Act and received fines and probation.

The probation order included a condition restricting his ability to work in the environmental business.

The appellant appealed, arguing the condition was purely punitive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the condition was appropriate under the Provincial Offences Act to prevent similar unlawful conduct and contribute to rehabilitation, given the appellant's lack of remorse and failure to appreciate the seriousness of his non-disclosure of data regarding PCB contamination.

The probation end date was amended to account for stays pending appeal.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board failed to apply the 'least onerous and least restrictive' test under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code when it denied a community living condition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board was aware of and applied the correct test.

The Court held that the evidence, including the appellant's continuing substance abuse and personality disorder, amply supported the Board's conclusion that a community placement condition did not meet the mandated test.

The appellant pleaded guilty to nine counts of theft related to his role as the mastermind of a scheme where younger individuals stole motor boats and construction equipment valued at approximately $65,000.

He appealed his sentence of imprisonment, arguing the sentencing judge failed to adequately explain why a conditional sentence was not warranted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was within the appropriate range and the sentencing judge gave cogent reasons emphasizing denunciation for the planned and well-developed scheme.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and forcible confinement involving a 13-year-old complainant.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding the theory of the defence, consent, mistake of age, and reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge adequately set out the defence's theory, properly instructed the jury on the withdrawal of consent and the objective element of the mistake of age defence, and correctly applied the burden of proof.

The appeal was dismissed.

The young person pleaded guilty to first degree murder and using a firearm during the commission of an indictable offence.

He was sentenced to an intensive rehabilitative custody sentence (IRCS) based on a joint submission, receiving only three months credit for 17.5 months of pre-sentence custody.

On appeal, he argued the youth court judge erred in deferring the weapons sentence and failing to give full credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the judge intended the custodial portions to be served continuously and had discretion to reduce pre-sentence credit below a one-to-one ratio in exceptional cases involving joint submissions.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable due to problems with eyewitness identification procedures and inconsistencies in the description of the getaway car.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and that the verdict was supported by a formidable circumstantial case, including the appellant's association with a car closely matching the getaway car.

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing there was no unequivocal refusal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge and summary conviction appeal judge's inference of an unequivocal refusal was available on the facts, and thus no error of law was demonstrated.