Philippe Georges Cowle

The appellant appealed both his conviction and sentence for sexual assault and invitation to touching a person under the age of 14 for a sexual purpose.

The conviction appeal was dismissed as the trial judge's reasons were sufficient and addressed all material issues.

The sentence appeal was allowed on the basis that the trial judge imposed a sentence exceeding the Crown's submissions without providing notice or opportunity for further submissions, constituting an error in principle.

The appellate court reassessed the sentence and imposed a global sentence of six years (44 months consecutive to the prior 28-month sentence) rather than the trial judge's six years and four months.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching.

He raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the trial judge interfered with defence counsel's cross-examination of the complainant, diverting counsel from relevant lines of inquiry; and second, that the trial judge's reasons were unbalanced, favoured the Crown, and failed to resolve material conflicts in evidence or meaningfully scrutinize the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal rejected both grounds, finding that the trial judge's interventions were appropriate and necessary to ensure fair treatment of the witness and clarity of evidence, and that her reasons were careful, detailed, and balanced.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a bank employee, pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 after disclosing clients' personal financial information to fraudsters, causing significant losses.

He appealed his sentence of two years less a day and a DNA order, seeking a conditional sentence or a reduction to 18 months.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly weighed mitigating factors, gave sufficient reasons, and appropriately prioritized general deterrence and denunciation for a large-scale fraud involving breach of trust.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence.

During the hearing, she withdrew her appeal against the conviction.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's admission of the appellant's confession or the finding of guilt.

The court granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge considered all relevant principles and circumstances, and that the sentence imposed was reasonable.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences against his stepdaughter.

He argued the trial judge erred in accepting the testimony of the complainant and her brother due to inconsistencies and memory loss, and in admitting the complainant's video statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the children's credibility or the admission of the video statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the agent of his paralegal entered a guilty plea against his instructions.

The Crown conceded that the plea was invalid.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and uttering death threats, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board granting him a conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding he remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly applied the significant threat standard and reasonably relied on expert evidence regarding the appellant's delusional disorder, refusal to take medication, and lack of insight.

The conditional discharge was upheld.

The appellant appealed her convictions for assault offences arising from an incident where police responded to a disconnected 911 call at her residence.

The appellant, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, locked herself in her bedroom and subsequently attacked an officer with a knife when police entered.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the police were trespassing, finding they acted reasonably under their duty to protect life.

The court allowed the appeal only to the extent of staying one count under the Kienapple principle and amending another count to particularize the use of a weapon.

The accused was charged with impaired driving following an incident at a schoolyard where police responded to an assault complaint.

Officers observed the accused and another male quickly enter a vehicle and attempt to drive away.

The vehicle was stopped by police.

Breath samples taken approximately two and a half hours after the incident showed readings of 117 mg and 118 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The defence raised the issue of bolus drinking, arguing that an open bottle of Hennessy cognac found in the back seat of the vehicle provided an air of reality to the defence.

The Crown's toxicologist testified that the accused's blood-alcohol level at the time of care and control would have been between 115 and 165 mg per 100 ml of blood, based on standard elimination rates.

The court found no credible evidence of bolus drinking and convicted the accused.

The Crown appealed an 18-month sentence imposed on the respondent for sexually assaulting his wife and assaulting his wife and children over a period of years.

The sentencing judge had considered the cultural impact of the family's move from Iran to Canada as a factor in sentencing.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that cultural practices that are criminal in Canada do not mitigate criminal conduct, particularly in domestic violence cases.

Finding the original sentence demonstrably unfit and noting the respondent's lack of remorse, the Court increased the global sentence to four years and ordered the respondent's reincarceration.

The accused was charged with care and control over 80 following an incident at a soccer field where he was identified as a suspect in an assault.

Police conducted an Approved Screening Device test and subsequently obtained breath samples at the police station.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the breath evidence on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that while the "forthwith" requirement under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code was satisfied due to legitimate officer safety concerns, there was a breach of section 8 of the Charter because the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable.

However, the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2), finding that exclusion would not be necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 months for break and enter, arguing the trial judge should have imposed consecutive sentences of less than six months each to preserve his right to appeal a removal order under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was aware of the immigration consequences and the sentence was reasonable given the severity of the offences and the appellant's record.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

At the Board hearing, the appellant's counsel did not contest the issue of significant risk.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the Board erred by failing to discharge its inquisitorial function and make an independent determination that the significant threat threshold had been met.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board was entitled to rely on counsel's acknowledgment, which was supported by the appellant's history and psychological assessments indicating a significant prospect of recidivism.

The applicant, a Francophone, was convicted of driving without insurance after his paralegal pled guilty on his behalf in English.

He appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice, where he was assisted by an interpreter and indicated he wanted a bilingual appeal and had experienced communication issues with his paralegal.

The appeal judge dismissed the appeal after the applicant confirmed he had authorized the guilty plea.

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing his language rights were violated.

The Court of Appeal granted leave, finding that whether a Francophone appellant is entitled to a bilingual appeal even if they did not request a bilingual trial raises an issue of public interest and the proper administration of justice.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual touching involving a child complainant over a five-year period.

He was sentenced to nine and three-quarter years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentence exceeded the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit given the appellant's position of trust, his related criminal record, and the profound impact on the complainant.

The appellant was convicted of sexual interference based on the testimony of his sister, who was 19 at trial but testified about abuse that occurred when she was between 7 and 17.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made two principal legal errors: assessing the adult complainant's evidence as if she were a child witness, and characterizing an admitted exaggeration under oath at the preliminary inquiry as a 'badge of credibility'.

A new trial was directed.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for a 2007 sexual assault and appealed his annual review by the Ontario Review Board, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

In parallel proceedings, the Superior Court overturned the NCR verdict and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the current appeal as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal as the bias issue was highly fact-specific.

The appellant appealed his convictions for three sexual offences against a 15-year-old complainant.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty on two independent bases: he had sexual relations with a minor without taking reasonable steps to ascertain her age, and he had sexual relations without her consent.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusions or her use of similar fact evidence, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant, convicted of break and enter and robbery, sought bail pending his conviction appeal.

The chambers judge applied the three-part test under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code.

While the applicant would surrender into custody and faced potential mootness of his appeal due to the sentence length, the judge found the appeal grounds were only marginally arguable.

Given the serious nature of the violent home invasion, the public interest favoured continued enforcement of the sentence.

The application for release was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for fraud over $5,000 arising from a fundraising scheme that solicited donations for seriously ill children while paying canvassers commissions and remitting only a small fraction of funds to charitable causes.

The Court of Appeal rejected the factual challenge to the finding that canvassers were instructed to mislead donors about being paid.

Applying Supreme Court of Canada authority, the court held that non-disclosure of the paid status of canvassers could constitute 'other fraudulent means' where the omission concealed a fundamental aspect of the fundraiser-contributor relationship and would mislead a reasonable donor.

The court also upheld the 15-month custodial sentence, fine, restitution order, and victim surcharge, emphasizing that custodial sentences are the norm in large-scale fraud cases.