Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCA

The appellant, Yasin Abdulle, appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and his 15-year parole ineligibility period.

The conviction appeal challenged the admission of evidence regarding prior violent incidents between rival gangs and the use of rap music lyrics during cross-examination.

The sentence appeal argued that the trial judge erred by minimizing the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on the appellant's moral culpability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no error in the admission of prior incident evidence or the use of rap lyrics for cross-examination.

While acknowledging the trial judge's error in dismissing evidence of anti-Black racism, the Court found this error did not impact the fit sentence, given the seriousness of the "near first-degree murder" offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The Crown appealed the sentences imposed on the respondent for home invasion offences and attempting to obstruct justice.

The respondent had been sentenced to eight and one-half years for the home invasion and six months consecutive for attempting to obstruct justice by passing a note to a co-accused.

The Court of Appeal upheld the home invasion sentence, finding it lenient but not demonstrably unfit.

However, the court found the six-month sentence for attempting to obstruct justice to be demonstrably unfit and increased it to two and one-half years consecutive, emphasizing that interfering with a witness normally warrants a penitentiary term.

The appellant appealed his three-year global sentence for criminal harassment, uttering threats, and breach of probation.

The appellant had sent hundreds of threatening messages of a sexually violent nature to his former domestic partner over two years, despite police warnings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was within the range for like offences and reflected the serious and aggravating features of the crimes.

The applicant sought review of a detention order made by a Superior Court judge under s. 680(1) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant was charged with two counts of first degree murder, one count of attempted murder, and one count of conspiracy to commit murder.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law, principle, or palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings regarding the primary and secondary grounds for detention.

The court upheld the detention order, finding the application judge's conclusions about the strength of the Crown's case and the fragility of the proposed release plan to be reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated September 14, 2018, which ordered his detention at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the Board erred in law or acted unreasonably in declining to impose a conditional discharge.

The appellant suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder with no insight into his condition, a pattern of medication noncompliance and substance abuse, and would not voluntarily return to hospital if requested.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board's decision and upheld the detention order, noting that the need to supervise housing and permit quick readmission if necessary are relevant considerations in determining whether a conditional discharge is appropriate.

The appellant was charged with speeding under the Highway Traffic Act.

He requested disclosure of the testing and operating procedures from the user manual for the Genesis Handheld Directional traffic radar device used to measure his vehicle's speed.

The prosecutor refused disclosure, taking the position that user manuals constitute third-party records requiring a third-party production application.

The justice of the peace ordered disclosure.

The prosecutor obtained a certiorari order quashing the disclosure order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the certiorari order was improper and that the disclosure was required as first-party disclosure under the Stinchcombe regime.

The appellant was convicted of three sexual offences committed against different complainants during a professional relationship and was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment to be served in the community.

The appellant appealed his convictions while the Crown appealed the sentence.

Following the appellant's death during the appeal process, the court considered whether to proceed with the appeals or dismiss them as moot.

The court dismissed both appeals as moot, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting departure from the general rule that an accused's death renders an appeal moot.

The appellant was convicted of attempted fraud over $5,000 and sentenced to five months' imprisonment and 30 months' probation.

He appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings and analysis of evidence were fair and even-handed.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal based on clarification of the law regarding immigration consequences of conditional sentences by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tran.

The court substituted the custodial sentence with an 18-month conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault entered by a trial judge sitting without a jury.

The trial judge found that the complainant, by virtue of her intoxication, lacked the capacity to consent to the sexual activity in issue.

The appellant argued the conviction was unreasonable and based on misapprehensions of evidence.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion that the Crown proved the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the complainant's lack of capacity to consent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted at jury trial of importing and conspiracy to import heroin, and of possession of and conspiracy to possess heroin for the purposes of trafficking.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's jury instructions on multiple grounds, including the failure to instruct on frailties of voice identification, the adequacy of the Vetrovec instruction regarding a key Crown witness, the absence of a special instruction regarding co-accused testimony, the failure to provide a remedial instruction on the right to silence, and the trial judge's failure to address inflammatory comments made by co-counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld both the convictions and the sentence of 16 years imprisonment.

The appellants were convicted by a jury of robbery, having their faces masked, assault with an imitation handgun, and using an imitation handgun.

One appellant was also convicted of resisting a peace officer.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in his instructions on party liability for the firearm offences.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the jury was not properly instructed that a non-gun-wielding intruder must know the other intruder had a firearm to be found guilty as a joint principal.

The appeal was allowed for the joint convictions and disguise charges, but the conviction for resisting arrest was upheld as the appellant's actions constituted active resistance.

The appellant, a 43-year-old Aboriginal man, appealed his sentence of two years less a day followed by two years' probation for possession for the purpose of trafficking in heroin and oxycodone.

The appellant argued for a reduction based on pre-trial custody credit.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the offences involved commercial trafficking in Schedule 1 drugs by an addict to support his habit.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court reiterating the trial judge's recommendation that the sentence be served at the Ontario Correctional Institute.

The appellant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, receiving an eight and one-half year sentence.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by presuming police truthfulness, applying uneven scrutiny to his testimony, misapprehending evidence, and engaging in speculation.

The Court of Appeal rejected all conviction grounds, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and factual findings were well-supported by the record.

The sentence appeal was allowed only to the extent of granting 65 days of pre-sentence custody credit that the trial judge had overlooked.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing that his guilty plea was invalid and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and fully informed, as the appellant had consulted with three lawyers and understood the consequences.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice amounting to a miscarriage of justice, as there was no reasonable probability he would have been acquitted at trial given the victim's injuries and witness statements.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for sexual assault and mischief arising from an incident where he touched the complainant and raised her skirt on a public bus.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal for sexual assault, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the original sentence of six months' imprisonment was wholly disproportionate for a first offender with 13 days of pre-sentence custody.

The sentence was varied to a suspended sentence with two years' probation.

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 appellants, facing Canadian charges for a telemarketing fraud scheme targeting US residents, were ordered committed for extradition to the United States.

They appealed the committal order and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order, arguing the Canadian proceedings were a sham to hold them on bail pending extradition (abuse of process) and that their surrender violated their s. 6(1) Charter mobility rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and applications, finding no air of reality to the abuse of process claim and holding that the Minister properly applied the Cotroni factors in deciding to surrender the appellants.

The appellant was convicted of assault, assault with a weapon, and sexual assault against his wife.

He appealed the convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting prior discreditable conduct evidence, reversing the burden of proof, misusing the complainant's statements to her doctor, and failing to consider good character evidence.

He also appealed his 30-month sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or evidentiary rulings.

While the trial judge erred in stating a penitentiary sentence was mandatory, the Court of Appeal upheld the 30-month sentence as fit given the serious domestic violence context.

The appellants, who were committed for trial on charges of first degree murder, appealed the dismissal of their applications to quash the committal order.

They brought a motion seeking an order that they not be required to pay for additional copies of the preliminary inquiry transcripts for the appeal, having already paid for copies used in the Superior Court.

They also sought an order requiring the court reporters to produce the transcripts on diskette for a nominal fee.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that rule 8(7) of the Criminal Appeal Rules is intended to avoid unnecessary duplication of expense, and ordered the court reporters to produce the transcripts on diskette for $1 each.

The applicant was committed for extradition to Trinidad on charges of murder and accessory after the fact to murder, where he faced a mandatory death penalty.

He applied for bail pending his appeal of the committal order and pending the Minister of Justice's surrender decision.

The Court of Appeal granted bail pending the surrender decision, finding that the mandatory death penalty raised a non-frivolous issue for the Minister, the applicant established he would surrender despite the flight risk, and public interest favoured his release given the 14-month delay.

The application for bail pending appeal was adjourned until after the Minister's decision.