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 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 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.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of aggravated assault and firearms offences, arguing the trial judge misapprehended surveillance video evidence, failed to assess evidence holistically, and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of the circumstantial evidence, and that the reasons were sufficient.

The court reiterated that Crown appeals from acquittals are limited to questions of law alone and cannot challenge the reasonableness of the verdict.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference against his girlfriend's two daughters over a three-year period ending in 2004.

The complainants, now adults, testified that the accused entered their bedrooms at night while they slept and engaged in inappropriate sexual touching.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found the complainants credible and reliable witnesses, rejected the accused's minimization of his presence in the home, and found him guilty on all four counts.

The court also addressed the admissibility of similar fact evidence and found no collusion between the complainants despite the opportunity for communication.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault by pouring boiling water on a vulnerable adult victim.

The victim had initially recanted her allegations, claiming the injuries were self-inflicted, but later reverted to her original account during cross-examination.

The trial judge convicted the appellant based on corroborating medical evidence from two treating physicians that the severe burns were inconsistent with self-infliction, combined with the victim's testimony regarding the circumstances of the assault.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: misapprehension of medical evidence, failure to exercise the gatekeeper function regarding expert evidence, misapplication of the burden of proof, and unreasonable verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds and upheld the conviction.

Two separate appeals concerning the entrapment defence in dial-a-dope drug trafficking investigations.

In Williams' case, the trial judge found entrapment and stayed drug trafficking charges, but the Crown appealed.

In Ahmad's case, the trial judge rejected an entrapment application and convicted the accused.

The Court of Appeal held that police may provide opportunities to sell drugs to persons associated with phone lines reasonably suspected of being used in dial-a-dope operations, even without reasonable suspicion that those individuals are engaged in criminal activity, provided the police are conducting a bona fide inquiry.

The majority found no entrapment in either case.

The concurrence reached the same result but on the basis that police had reasonable suspicion that both accused were engaged in criminal activity.

The accused, a nurse, was charged with sexual assault against a complainant who was brought to a hospital emergency room in a highly intoxicated and unresponsive state.

The complainant alleged that the accused engaged in multiple instances of inappropriate touching, including fondling her breasts and placing her hand on his genitals while inserting an intravenous line.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to her impaired cognitive state, internal inconsistencies, and demonstrated motive to tailor her testimony.

A credible eyewitness who observed the relevant portion of the alleged assault testified that he did not see any of the alleged inappropriate conduct.

The accused's evidence was consistent with the eyewitness account and video evidence.

The charge was dismissed.