Peter Scrutton

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in law by presiding over the trial after having conducted the pre-trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that while judges who conduct pre-trials should generally avoid conducting the trial, it is not a per se reversible error.

Absent clear objection from counsel and any prejudice, the trial judge's decision to seize herself with the trial was not an error in law.

The court also upheld the trial judge's factual findings that the appellant followed the complainant, made threatening gestures, and rammed her vehicle.

The appellants appealed their convictions for fraud and the resulting sentences, including a restitution order.

The Court of Appeal found no misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge regarding the identity of the vehicles involved, nor any inconsistency in the verdicts.

The court held that misrepresentations in insurance documents justified the fraud conviction and upheld the restitution order as a proper exercise of discretion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for drug trafficking.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting his statement to the police and in relying on the evidence of a witness.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's s. 24(2) Charter analysis or her assessment of the witness's evidence.

The court also rejected the appellant's request for sentence credit for time spent on bail under strict conditions, noting he was arrested for drug trafficking while on release.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed and leave to appeal sentence was denied.

The accused chased a stolen vehicle at high speeds and struck and killed a police officer who had stepped onto the highway to deploy a spike belt.

The accused was acquitted of criminal negligence causing death but convicted of the included offence of dangerous driving.

The Crown appealed the acquittal, arguing the defence closing address was unfair and the jury instructions on causation were misleading.

The accused appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge improperly interrupted the defence closing and erred by instructing the jury to consider his driving throughout the entire chase rather than just at the point of impact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the trial judge's caution to the jury adequately addressed the defence closing, the causation instructions were proper, and the dangerous driving charge correctly encompassed the continuous transaction of the chase.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissing his appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law or material misapprehension of evidence in the lower court's reasons.

The court held there was ample evidence to support the conviction and rejected the argument that the verdict was unreasonable.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of child pornography.

He argued that evidence of two pairs of underwear found in his possession upon arrest should have been excluded because its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value, and that the trial judge erred by failing to give a limiting instruction to the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence was relevant, no objection was made at trial, and a limiting instruction was unnecessary given the defense's position.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed his seven-year consecutive sentence for assault and aggravated assault on a fellow inmate.

The trial judge imposed a sentence exceeding the Crown's proposal of five years consecutive, but rejected the Crown's request for an extended period of parole ineligibility.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the appellant's lengthy criminal record and the serious injuries suffered by the victim.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, who was unrepresented, brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing his motion to review a single judge's refusal to extend the time to appeal his convictions for uttering death threats.

The Court of Appeal found that while the proposed notice of appeal did not raise an arguable ground, a review of the trial record suggested an arguable ground might exist regarding whether the elements of the offences were established.

The court set aside the previous orders and extended the time to appeal, directing the matter to be spoken to when duty counsel could assist the applicant.

The applicant's separate motion to review orders denying him transcripts and a court reporter at government expense was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence after the trial judge rejected a joint submission of two years plus three years' probation, instead imposing a sentence of four and a half years.

The trial judge found the joint submission fell well below the minimum appropriate sentence, noting aggravating factors including domestic assault with a knife, forced entry, being on probation for offences against the same victim, and a record of over fifty convictions.

The Court of Appeal agreed the joint submission was too low but held the trial judge should have imposed a sentence at the bottom of the appropriate range.

The Court varied the sentence on the break and enter count to two and a half years, resulting in a total effective global sentence of four years.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing it was inconsistent with the parity principle compared to his co-accused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge had a basis to conclude the appellant's culpability was greater, as his identification was found in a bag containing weapons, drugs, and cash.

The appellant appealed from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board holding that he continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordering his detention in a medium secure unit.

The appellant argued the Board erred by not ordering a further review within six months and by keeping him in a medium secure unit despite his progress.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the treating psychiatrist did not definitively recommend a six-month review and the Board's decision to maintain medium security was reasonable given ongoing concerns about elopement and potential reoffending.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere, holding that the sentence was well within the appropriate range given the circumstances.

Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing that two search warrants authorizing the seizure of his hospital treatment records and blood samples were invalid.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge correctly applied the Garofoli test and found there was reliable evidence before the issuing justice to support the warrants.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought to reopen appeals from 2005 and 2006 Ontario Review Board dispositions that had been dismissed as moot.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to reopen, noting the applicant had an outstanding appeal against his current 2007 disposition that raised the identical issues.

However, the Court granted the applicant's motion to appoint counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for his pending appeal, finding it desirable in the interests of justice.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 14 months' incarceration for theft and attempted break and enter.

He argued the trial judge erred by imposing consecutive sentences, failing to impose a conditional sentence, and failing to credit him for strict pre-trial bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the consecutive sentences fit, the rejection of a conditional sentence justified by the appellant's substantial risk of reoffending, and the lack of credit for pre-trial bail appropriate given the insufficient evidence of its impact.

The self-represented appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge's reasons regarding both the motions and the final disposition.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to breaching non-communication and non-contact provisions of a recognizance and received a sentence that included a five-year weapons prohibition order on joint submission.

He later appealed the weapons prohibition order, arguing his conduct did not constitute a threat of violence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the appellant's persistent conduct toward his former wife amounted to implied threats of violence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to twelve offences, including assault causing bodily harm and break and enter, mostly in a domestic context.

He was sentenced to ten months in custody in addition to seven and a half months of pre-trial custody credit.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to adequately consider his guilty plea, his rehabilitation, and erred in calculating pre-trial custody credit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the relevant factors and the overall sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the appeal and concluding that the sentence imposed was entirely fit.