Owen Macmillan Goddard

The Crown appealed acquittals on firearms charges following a Charter breach finding.

Police executed a general warrant to seize a cellular device associated with a specific phone number during a murder investigation.

The respondent was a victim/witness to the murder.

During execution, police seized three phones and discovered firearms in a hidden door compartment.

The application judge found the search exceeded the warrant's scope, violating s. 8 of the Charter, and excluded the firearms under s. 24(2).

The majority (Miller and Wilson JJ.A.) allowed the appeal, finding no s. 8 violation and that the firearms should be admitted.

Pomerance J.A. dissented, agreeing with the application judge that the police exceeded the warrant's terms and that exclusion was appropriate.

The appellant appealed his convictions for multiple counts of fraud, attempted fraud, identity theft, and fraudulent personation, as well as the restitution order imposed.

The appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence, including a psychiatric report and his own affidavit, to explain why he did not testify at trial and to establish what his evidence would have been.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to adduce fresh evidence, finding that the appellant made a free and informed choice not to testify, as evidenced by written instructions signed before trial.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal regarding the $300,000 restitution order, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's sentencing discretion.

The applicant was convicted of sexual interference, internet luring, and two counts of failing to comply with a release order.

He was sentenced to six years and ten months imprisonment.

The applicant applied for bail pending appeal of his convictions.

The motion judge refused bail, finding that while the appeal was not frivolous, it barely met that threshold.

The enforceability considerations arising from the grave nature of the offences—ongoing sexual abuse of a 13-year-old child—outweighed the weak grounds of appeal.

The motion judge concluded that release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The appellant, Deepan Budlakoti, appealed his conviction for firearms offences, arguing that he was entrapped by a police agent.

The Court of Appeal addressed three grounds: alleged improper reliance on a hearsay statement, failure to consider the police agent’s financial motive, and failure to treat the agent as a Vetrovec witness.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s approach to any of these issues and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the Crown's appeal from acquittals on charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement, finding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider similar act evidence holistically.

The trial judge focused on minor dissimilarities between witness accounts rather than the striking similarities, which deprived the Crown of critical identification evidence.

The Court ordered a new trial.

The applicant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery related to a series of carjackings and was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment.

He brought a motion for leave to appeal his sentence and for bail pending appeal.

The Crown did not oppose leave to appeal but opposed bail.

The motion judge granted leave to appeal but dismissed the application for bail, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate that his appeal had sufficient merit to cause unnecessary hardship if he remained detained.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed on the respondent for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The respondent had discharged the firearm during a shootout in a public parking lot.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by prioritizing rehabilitation over denunciation and deterrence, and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

However, the majority dismissed the appeal and declined to incarcerate the respondent, citing his significant rehabilitative progress and the time already served under the conditional sentence.

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences, including robbery with a firearm, arising from a home invasion.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's DNA on a pry bar left at the scene and his subsequent arrest in a stolen vehicle containing items taken during the robbery.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended identification evidence, failed to consider alternative explanations for the DNA evidence, and erred in finding a real firearm was used.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's assessment of the circumstantial evidence was reasonable and the alternative explanations were speculative.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a six-year sentence for two counts of sexual assault and one count of unlawful confinement.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by treating a risk assessment as having no value due to the appellant's alleged dishonesty and by classifying the appellant's mental health issues as "neutral" rather than mitigating.

While upholding the application of the intimate partner aggravating factor, the appellate court re-evaluated the sentence, reducing it from six years to five years concurrent.

The appellant, J.E., appealed his conviction for sexual interference.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made three significant legal errors in assessing the evidence of a defence witness (the complainant's mother).

These errors included applying the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to individual items of evidence, effectively reversing the burden of proof on the defence, and requiring independent corroboration for defence testimony.

The Court held that these errors were not inconsequential, as the defence witness's testimony, though peripheral, could have contributed to a reasonable doubt regarding the complainant's credibility or reliability.

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

This is an appeal from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) concerning an individual found not criminally responsible for arson.

The appellant challenged the ORB's refusal to grant a cannabis exemption as part of his continued detention and privileges, arguing that cannabis use would be a harm reduction strategy for his cocaine use and was not linked to public safety risk.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ORB's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by evidence, including a link between cannabis use and the index offence, and that prior cannabis use did not curb cocaine use.

The appellant, Shaun Rootenberg, appealed his conviction for fraud over $5,000 and his six-year sentence.

The conviction appeal raised two issues: the unreasonableness of the verdict regarding the dishonest diversion of funds, and the trial judge's refusal to grant a stay of proceedings due to alleged section 8 Charter violations from strip searches during pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds of appeal, finding the fraud conviction overwhelmingly supported by evidence and no Charter breach in the strip searches, or if there was, it did not warrant a stay.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the six-year sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the appellant's prior fraud convictions and the devastating impact on the complainant.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault, child luring, and child pornography offences, appealed three rulings from his trial.

He challenged the trial judge's decision to admit child pornography evidence despite a s. 8 Charter breach regarding the search warrant's scope, her refusal to allow cross-examination of the affiant (Det. Pelletier) on his mental health and disclose his medical records, and the excusal of another officer (Officer D.G.) from testifying.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's s. 24(2) Charter analysis, finding no error in balancing the Grant factors.

The court also affirmed the trial judge's discretionary decisions regarding cross-examination and disclosure, noting the appellant's failure to lay a proper evidentiary foundation for his Charter applications.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assaulting his former intimate partner on three occasions, breaking and entering, and criminal harassment.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's credibility findings, arguing that the complainant's evidence was contradicted by text messages and photographs suggesting an ongoing relationship and lack of fear.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, affirming that a trial judge can accept parts of a witness's testimony and that victim behaviour does not always conform to stereotypes.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm and failing to stop after an accident, appealed his 33-month sentence.

He argued the sentencing judge erred in principle by focusing on general deterrence to the exclusion of restraint.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding the sentencing judge properly considered all principles.

The appeal was dismissed, and the court clarified the commencement date of the driving prohibition under the Criminal Code.

The appellant, a young person, appealed convictions for sexual assault and uttering death threats, arguing the trial judge's reasons were insufficient due to a failure to address material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and a potential motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge's reasons did not permit meaningful appellate review as they failed to grapple with critical credibility issues.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.

The Crown conceded the conviction appeal, acknowledging that the verdicts were unreasonable due to reliance on inadmissible evidence.

The Court of Appeal accepted the concession, setting aside the convictions and entering acquittals.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal for second-degree murder, arguing the trial judge erred in his jury instructions on self-defence and in excluding evidence of the respondent's prior disreputable conduct and criminal record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's discretionary rulings on the evidentiary issues, notably confirming for the first time that Gladue principles are relevant to a Corbett application when assessing the probative value and prejudicial effect of an Indigenous accused's prior convictions.

In a multi-accused pre-trial Charter motion arising from a violent home invasion and related firearms and conspiracy allegations, the applicants sought excision of Home Depot records, Instagram-derived identification evidence, tower dump material, and Part VI interceptions.

The court held the applicants lacked standing to challenge the Home Depot records and store surveillance, and that the private Instagram account did not attract an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances.

The court further upheld the tower dump authorization under s. 487.015 of the Criminal Code, found the subsequent subscriber query authorized, and rejected claims that the ITO relied on speculation.

Applying Garofoli and Araujo, the court concluded that, after amplification and excision, the Part VI authorization still had sufficient grounds and satisfied investigative necessity.

The motion was dismissed, with remaining search issues relating to later searches to be addressed separately.

The appellant, Dylan Hird, appealed his conviction for various offences related to the trafficking and sexual assault of a 15-year-old complainant.

The appeal focused on two grounds: the trial judge's charge to the jury regarding identification evidence and the handling of the police's failure to conduct a photo line-up.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's instructions on identification, which adequately cautioned the jury on eyewitness testimony frailties and the need to prove the appellant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's management of the photo line-up issue, concluding that the approach taken was fair to both the Crown and the defence.