Ontario Court of Justice - Summary Conviction Offences - ONCA

The appellant, Feisal Noor, appealed his conviction on firearms-related charges, arguing that his s. 9 Charter right against arbitrary detention and s. 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure were violated.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the police had reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention and that the handgun was found in plain view during a lawful struggle, thus dismissing the Charter application and affirming the conviction.

The Crown applied for forfeiture of a $20,000 release order against Abadula Biya and his sureties (his parents) following Mr. Biya's breach of bail conditions.

Mr. Biya had been released on bail pending appeal, which was later successful, leading to a new trial.

Despite a technicality in the latest release order form regarding Mr. Biya's personal liability, the court found jurisdiction for forfeiture based on earlier orders and Mr. Biya's admission of breach.

Applying principles from Horvath and Griffiths, the court considered the sureties' diligence, the family's financial hardship, and the need to maintain bail system credibility.

The court ordered partial forfeiture: Mr. Biya to pay $1,500 over two years, and each surety (his parents) to pay $750 over one year, totaling $3,000.

A young person was convicted of manslaughter, aggravated assault, careless use of a firearm, and possession of a firearm without licence or registration following a judge-alone trial.

The appellant appealed the convictions for manslaughter, aggravated assault, and careless use of a firearm, claiming self-defence.

The trial judge rejected the self-defence claim, finding that the appellant fired his gun at retreating attackers and therefore acted unreasonably.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in finding that the appellant knew his attackers were retreating before he fired the first shot, and that the trial judge failed to properly apply the objective reasonableness standard for self-defence by imposing an unreasonably high burden on the appellant to weigh his response to a nicety within five seconds of being attacked.

The court allowed the appeal and entered acquittals on all three appealed charges.

An application for interim release pending a new trial ordered by the Court of Appeal.

The applicant had been convicted of assault-related offences and sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment.

Following release on statutory release and subsequent immigration detention, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The applicant sought interim release pending the new trial.

The motions judge granted the application on consent terms but noted that the application should have been brought before the Superior Court of Justice rather than the Court of Appeal, as the Superior Court had concurrent jurisdiction at the time the application was made.

The appellant appealed his convictions on two counts of assault using a weapon and one count of assault causing bodily harm arising from an altercation at a pizza store.

The trial judge found the appellant used a screwdriver to assault the store owner and employee, and rejected his self-defence claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's excessive interventions during the appellant's testimony undermined the appearance of fairness and resulted in actual unfairness.

The trial judge's pointed cross-examination of the appellant, belittling comments to defence counsel, and persistent challenging of the appellant's account prevented him from presenting his version of events.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on drug and firearms charges.

The trial judge found that police violated the respondent's Charter rights under section 8 by obtaining a search warrant based on stale information.

The warrant was issued on February 26, 2016, to search the respondent's vehicle for cocaine and related items, based on information that the respondent had allegedly delivered drugs to a target of investigation on February 3, 2016, and possibly on December 18, 2015.

The trial judge concluded that the 23-day delay between the last alleged transaction and the warrant execution rendered the information insufficient to establish reasonable grounds to believe evidence would be found in the vehicle.

The trial judge excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal (majority) dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's analysis of the staleness of the information or the application of the section 24(2) factors.

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 applicant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment followed by 2 years of probation.

He sought bail pending appeal.

The trial judge's conviction turned on credibility findings, relying heavily on video evidence of the complainant's demeanour immediately after the alleged assault.

The applicant argued the trial judge improperly relied on demeanour evidence contrary to Supreme Court precedent and failed to adequately address serious credibility issues with the complainant's testimony.

The motion judge granted bail pending appeal, finding the grounds of appeal were not frivolous and that detention was not justified based on the applicant's bail compliance history and surety plan.

The applicant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to six months' imprisonment followed by eighteen months' probation.

He appealed his conviction on grounds including misapplication of the law concerning reasonable steps in ascertaining consent and insufficient reasons for judgment.

The motion judge found the appeal was not frivolous and granted bail pending appeal, noting the short sentence made the appeal vulnerable to becoming moot.

The appellant appealed his convictions for fraud-related offences involving possession of fraudulent and forged credit cards and identity information.

The central issue was whether evidence obtained from warrantless searches of a USB key and a stolen vehicle should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to breaches of s. 8 rights.

The trial judge admitted the evidence, finding no Charter violation.

On appeal, the court found that the two searches of the USB key were unreasonable and violated s. 8 rights, as they were not truly incidental to the arrest for which the appellant was charged.

However, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), balancing the seriousness of the breach against the minimal impact on the appellant and society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal his four-year sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to consider rehabilitation.

Leave was granted but the sentence appeal was dismissed as the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence from a trial decision.

The conviction appeal challenged the trial judge's conclusion on a Garofoli application regarding a CDSA warrant for a warehouse search.

The appellant argued that the affiant failed to disclose relevant information, included inappropriate opinion, intentionally misled the authorizing judge, and that insufficient grounds existed that marijuana would be found in the warehouse.

The Court of Appeal found the ITO provided ample evidentiary basis for the conclusion that marijuana would be found at the warehouse and saw no basis to find the affiant was untruthful or provided inappropriate opinion.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence imposed did not reflect an error in principle or was otherwise unfit.

The applicant sought a review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code of bail conditions imposed by a Superior Court judge.

The applicant was charged with drug trafficking and had been released on strict conditions including house arrest, bi-weekly reporting, prohibition on possessing a cellphone, and prohibition on associating with persons with criminal records.

The applicant sought to vary these conditions to permit employment and to possess one cellphone.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that absent special circumstances, superior courts should deal with bail matters prior to and during trial, while courts of appeal should deal with bail pending appeal.

The applicant failed to demonstrate special circumstances warranting appellate intervention.

The appellant was convicted of three firearms-related offences arising from his possession of a loaded .45 calibre handgun discovered during a dynamic nighttime search of his home.

The search warrant was issued via telewarrant and targeted the appellant's son.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the application of the Garofoli step six procedure, the reasonableness of the dynamic entry execution, and sought exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal his sentence of 21 months' imprisonment and 2 years' probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and the sentence appeal.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and aggravated assault following a violent altercation on a restaurant patio.

He appealed on two grounds, claiming the Crown's closing address was improper and that the trial judge's instruction on self-defence was erroneous.

The Crown's closing address did not misstate the legal test for self-defence under s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code, and any inappropriate comments were adequately corrected by the trial judge.

The trial judge's instruction on self-defence was thorough and proper, correctly identifying the three key elements of the defence without improperly adding proportionality as an additional requirement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of possessing narcotics for the purpose of trafficking and one count of possessing proceeds of crime.

The evidence was obtained through a general warrant under s. 487.01 of the Criminal Code, which authorized covert entry into a leased unit to locate and observe narcotics.

The appellant appealed on grounds relating to the jury charge and the validity of the general warrant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the general warrant was improperly issued as it was used to circumvent the more stringent requirements of a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act s. 11 warrant.

The court set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial.

The appellant sought bail pending appeal following conviction on four counts: sexual assault, sexual interference, incest, and assault against his biological daughter when she was 13-14 years old.

He was sentenced to eight years in penitentiary.

The Crown opposed bail on public interest grounds, arguing that the seriousness of the offence and length of sentence warranted detention.

The Court of Appeal granted bail, finding that the grounds of appeal were sufficiently strong to meet the threshold under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, particularly given the incomplete reasons for conviction and the appellant's lengthy history of bail compliance without incident.

Two appellants, Jemaine Phillips and Drai O'Hara-Salmon, appealed their convictions for first-degree murder in connection with the shooting death of Said Hadbai in a parking lot across from Jack's Bar in London, Ontario on December 27, 2011.

Phillips, who fired the fatal shot, was convicted as the principal offender.

O'Hara-Salmon was convicted as a party to the offence under sections 21(1)(b), 21(1)(c), and 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

Phillips raised multiple grounds of appeal concerning the trial judge's instructions on self-defence, the exclusion of expert psychiatric evidence, the failure to leave provocation with the jury, and various other charging issues.

O'Hara-Salmon raised grounds concerning the adequacy of instructions on party liability, the failure to give a W.(D.) instruction, and the reasonableness of the verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's conduct or instructions.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms and ammunition offences, challenging the trial judge's admission of evidence seized during a search of a farmhouse.

The appellant argued that the use of tear gas during the execution of the search warrant constituted an unauthorized search in breach of section 8 of the Charter, and alternatively, that the manner of execution was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the use of tear gas was not a "search" within the meaning of section 8 of the Charter, as it was not conducted for the purpose of obtaining personal information but rather to safely flush out occupants.

The court also found that the search was executed in a reasonable manner given the circumstances known to police at the time.

The appellant was arrested on a charge of importing cocaine under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and was detained in custody.

Following conviction by jury, the appellant filed an application for judicial interim release under section 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, alleging a change in circumstances.

The trial judge dismissed the application on the tertiary ground.

The appellant then brought an application in the nature of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, seeking declarations regarding the court's jurisdiction to review bail and challenging the absence of a review mechanism as violating her Charter rights.

The Superior Court judge dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that Parliament deliberately chose not to provide a review mechanism for trial judge orders under section 523(2)(a), and that habeas corpus was not an appropriate remedy in these circumstances.

The appellant was convicted of assault, possession of a weapon (a knife), aggravated assault, and breach of probation following an incident with her then-boyfriend.

She was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on the aggravated assault conviction and 30 days concurrent for breach of probation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's rejection of her self-defence claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly considered and rejected the self-defence argument on the merits based on the evidence she accepted.

The appellant failed to demonstrate any palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or inferences.