Paul Joseph Calarco

The Crown appealed the acquittals of the respondents on charges of failing to provide necessaries of life and forcible confinement of their four-year-old child.

The trial judge erred by requiring proof of actual risk of harm for the necessaries charge under s. 215(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, and by not considering the egregious conditions of confinement for the forcible confinement charge.

The appeal court found that a sanitary environment is a necessary of life and the child was in necessitous circumstances, overturning the acquittal on necessaries.

For forcible confinement, the court held that the parents' authority to confine ceases when conduct is abusive or harmful, remitting this charge for a new trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for accessing, possessing, and making child pornography available, arguing that the search of his rooming house and electronic devices violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal held that the warrant was not overbroad, was executed reasonably, and explicitly authorized the search of the seized electronic devices.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, G.J.S., appealed his conviction for sexual interference and sexual assault involving his step-daughter.

The trial judge had found the appellant guilty of these charges but not guilty of sexual exploitation, distinguishing between earlier and later alleged incidents.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's use of the complainant's prior consistent statements and a threatening incident involving her biological father.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge improperly used this evidence to enhance the complainant's general trustworthiness and reliability, rather than solely to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication.

This improper use was deemed determinative of guilt for the earlier allegations.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered on both counts.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) to continue his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), rejecting a joint submission for transfer to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health.

The appellant argued the ORB breached procedural fairness by not giving express notice of its intent to reject the joint submission and that its decision was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found that the ORB's "significantly probing" questions during the hearing provided sufficient implicit notice and that its decision to reject the transfer was reasonable, as the evidence did not support the claimed benefits of transfer or a treatment impasse at CAMH.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting and relying on the complainant's prior consistent statement to a doctor that her injury was caused by 'forced intercourse'.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge improperly used the statement to bolster the complainant's credibility rather than for a permissible purpose under the narrative as circumstantial evidence exception.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of several offences arising out of an armed home invasion and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

He appealed his convictions and sentence, and his counsel pursued production of records to advance an alibi and alternate suspect defence.

However, the appellant was subsequently found inadmissible to Canada for serious criminality and deported.

As he was no longer amenable to the court's jurisdiction, the appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant was convicted after trial of firearm and other offences and received a total sentence of 70 months (84 months with 14 months credit for pretrial custody).

The appellant appealed the sentence on grounds including the restraint principle, arguing that a lengthy penitentiary term was unnecessary given his lack of prior incarceration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence as fit, finding that for serious domestic violence offences involving a lethal weapon, deterrence, denunciation, and victim protection must take precedence over the restraint principle.

The court corrected three technical sentencing errors but found no net effect on the total sentence imposed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference, arguing the trial judge erred in law regarding the burden of proof.

The trial judge had stated that in the absence of contradiction of the complainant's evidence, he 'must accept it'.

The Superior Court of Justice found this to be an error of law that shifted the burden of proof and failed to consider the third branch of the W.(D.) analysis.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of various drugs.

He received a sentence of two years less a day on the aggravated assault conviction with concurrent sentences on drug charges, followed by two years' probation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction on the aggravated assault charge and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The conviction appeal raised three grounds: improper cross-examination by the Crown on a girlfriend's statement, improper splitting of the Crown's case by calling the girlfriend in reply, and alleged misdirection on the defence of self-defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence from two years less a day to 12 months' imprisonment and vacating the victim surcharge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for armed robbery and related offences, arguing that the trial judge failed to address a suggestion that a police officer may have condoned the complainant lying in his statement to police.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the suggestion was not the only interpretation of the evidence and that the trial judge properly addressed inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The court also upheld the sentence of eight years less two years' credit for pre-sentence custody as fit, but granted leave to appeal sentence and varied it only to strike the victim fine surcharge in light of R. v. Boudreault.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and breach of probation, as well as his sentence of 20 months imposed following a judge-alone trial.

The sole issue on the conviction appeal was whether the prosecution should have been stayed for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The trial judge found that after appropriate deductions, the delay did not exceed the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's analysis, finding no error in the attribution of delay periods and confirming that the total delay, even after correcting for one instance of double-counting, remained below 18 months.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentencing judge committed no error of law or principle.

The victim surcharge was set aside in light of R. v. Boudreault.

The appellants appealed their convictions for assault causing bodily harm and, for one appellant, threatening death.

The court upheld the convictions for assault causing bodily harm, finding the trial judge's assessment of credibility and reliability, and rejection of self-defence, to be reasonable and supported by evidence.

However, the conviction for threatening death was set aside as unsupported by evidence.

The appellant was convicted by jury of robbery, assault causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, uttering a threat to cause death, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and pleaded guilty to breach of recognizance.

The crimes involved the slashing and robbery of a 57-year-old blind male complainant.

Identity was the only contested issue at trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sought leave to appeal his sentence of seven years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's jury charge regarding the alternative suspect defence or the Vetrovec charge.

However, the court found sentencing errors and imposed a stay on the aggravated assault and weapon dangerous convictions pursuant to Kienapple principles, and varied the sentences on the uttering a threat to cause death and breach of recognizance convictions to 18 months and three months concurrent respectively, while affirming the global sentence of seven years less 771 days' credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and using an imitation firearm in the commission of that offence.

He was sentenced to six months' incarceration for robbery and 12 months' consecutive for the firearm offence.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the convictions on four grounds: the admissibility of dog tracking evidence, the trial judge's use of post-offence conduct evidence (flight from police), the trial judge's treatment of evidence regarding the appellant's intoxication, and a misapprehension of evidence regarding the appellant's location.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the convictions.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after fatally stabbing his friend during a physical altercation that began as a fist fight and escalated when the deceased produced a knife.

The appellant admitted to causing the death but claimed self-defence.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole ineligibility of 12 years.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the admission of various evidence, the jury charge on self-defence and provocation, and the sentencing decision.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, though it identified an error in sentencing that had no impact on the outcome.

The appellant appealed his convictions for importing heroin and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, as well as sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The appellant did not dispute physical possession of 146 grams of heroin delivered by FedEx from India.

His defence was that he believed he was receiving electronics for a fee of $800 as part of an import scheme.

The trial judge rejected this explanation as neither credible nor plausible and convicted him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal on all grounds, finding no error in the trial judge's reasoning regarding the actus reus and mens rea of importing, the appellant's knowledge or wilful blindness, the proper drawing of inferences, the burden of proof, and the Crown's cross-examination.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the six-year concurrent sentences fit given the nature and amount of heroin, financial motive, and prior criminal record.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering a conditional discharge with residence requirements and mandatory reporting to CAMH.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board failed to properly consider whether he continued to present a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board properly applied the statutory criteria under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, considered the appellant's psychiatric condition (schizophrenia with profound negative symptoms), his history of offending, and expert evidence that without continued control the appellant would likely fall away from treatment and pose a significant risk of violent re-offending.

The conditional discharge was found to be a reasonable disposition within the Board's discretion.

The appellant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to import heroin and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, as well as his sentence of 11 years and 3.5 months.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal regarding conviction: (1) inadequate jury instruction on the limited use of a co-accused's out-of-court statement, and (2) failure to hold a jury inquiry due to alleged juror bias.

The appellant also appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to give effect to rehabilitation and failed to consider the lower purity of the heroin as a mitigating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's instructions, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no manifest unfitness in the sentence imposed.

The appellants were convicted by jury of importing 7.86 kilograms of cocaine into Canada from Jamaica and each received sentences of 6.5 years imprisonment.

Potts appealed both conviction and sentence; Robinson appealed sentence only.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's jury charge on the mental element of importing, limiting instructions on co-accused statements, right to silence, expert evidence, or character evidence.

The sentencing appeals were also dismissed as the sentences were fit and within the appropriate range for this offence.

The Crown applied for certiorari with mandamus in aid to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's order discharging the accused on two counts of first-degree murder and committing him only on second-degree murder.

The Superior Court found that the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded his jurisdiction by impermissibly weighing evidence, assessing pieces of evidence in isolation, and selecting between competing inferences rather than accepting the inferences most favourable to the Crown.

The application was granted, the discharge was quashed, and the matter was remitted to commit the accused on two counts of first-degree murder.