Owen Macmillan Goddard

The hospital appealed a mandatory order from the Ontario Review Board requiring it to provide up to two escorted visits per year for a forensic patient to his mother's home for dinner.

The patient had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for sexual assault offences and had been detained in maximum security since 1989.

The Review Board initially made the visits discretionary but amended its disposition to make them mandatory.

The Court of Appeal allowed the hospital's appeal, finding that the board erred in law and acted unreasonably by imposing a mandatory order without discretion.

The court held that while the board may encourage the hospital to create community visit programs, the terms must remain discretionary to allow the hospital to consider staff availability, patient stability, and the consent of the person to be visited.

The accused, a teacher, was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of a nine-year-old student in a school portable.

The trial judge assessed the credibility and reliability of the child complainant's evidence, noting several inconsistencies and a fabricated sighting of the accused after his arrest.

Applying the principles for assessing children's evidence, the court found the complainant's testimony unreliable and the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.

The appellant was convicted of numerous firearms offences after police found stolen guns in his storage locker.

The search warrant was based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) relying on a confidential informant.

At trial, the Crown provided a judicial summary of the redacted ITO under step six of Garofoli, which the trial judge found adequate.

On appeal, the appellant sought to challenge the constitutionality of step six of Garofoli for the first time and argued the summary was inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, refusing to hear the new constitutional argument and upholding the adequacy of the summary.

The sentence appeal was allowed only to grant enhanced credit for pre-trial custody at a rate of 1.5:1, reducing the net sentence to eight years and one month.

The appellant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, criminal harassment, and breach of a court order.

He was unaware that his guilty plea to dangerous driving would result in an automatic, indefinite suspension of his driver's licence under the Highway Traffic Act due to his prior convictions.

The Court of Appeal held that the collateral consequence of an indefinite licence suspension was legally relevant and significant to the appellant, a truck driver.

Because he was uninformed of this consequence, his plea was invalid.

The appeal was allowed, the guilty plea and conviction for dangerous driving were set aside, and a new trial was ordered on that charge.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for threatening death and assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at CAMH with a condition allowing him to live in approved community accommodation.

The appellant argued the Board erred by not ordering a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly considered the relevant criteria, including the appellant's liberty interest, and reasonably concluded that a detention order was necessary to ensure CAMH could approve his housing as the safest first step for reintegration.

The appellant appealed her sentence and dangerous offender designation, arguing that the public could be adequately protected by a determinate sentence made consecutive to her lengthy remanet.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's violent behaviour could not be controlled in the community was supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

The young person appealed a finding of guilt for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge applied differing levels of scrutiny to the evidence and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to bring a section 11(b) Charter application for delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessment.

The Court also held that the appellant failed to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice, as a section 11(b) application would not have had a reasonable chance of success given the periods of defence delay.