Philippe Georges Cowle

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on historical sexual offences.

The case turned entirely on the trial judge's assessment of the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge correctly applied the W.D. test, concluding that the respondent's evidence left him with a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was unrepresented at trial, appealed his conviction on the grounds that he did not receive a fair trial because he misunderstood the concept of wilful blindness and the evidentiary nature of disclosure material.

He also argued the trial judge applied an objective standard to wilful blindness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant understood wilful blindness, the confusion over disclosure did not impact the trial's fairness, and the trial judge did not err in applying the wilful blindness doctrine given the overwhelming nature of the Crown's case.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and breaking and entering, relying on fresh evidence and asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal found that while fresh expert evidence showed the blood pattern on the screen door was not caused by a baseball bat, the presence of the appellant's blood and fingerprints inside the house and on the door provided ample evidence of his participation.

The court also rejected the ineffective assistance claim regarding a height disparity, noting it was a deliberate tactical decision by trial counsel.

The application to adduce fresh evidence and the appeal were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering her detention in a secure forensic unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The amicus curiae argued the Board erred by not permitting community living and failing to consider the least onerous disposition under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition reasonable given the appellant's recent decompensation and significant risk to public safety, and noting the order allowed for transfer to a general unit upon clinical improvement.

The appellant appealed his 9-month sentence for three counts of break and enter of private dwellings, arguing that the immigration consequences justified a reduction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the trial judge was aware of mitigating factors and could not avoid immigration consequences given the maximum penalty for the offence.

The court did, however, order a correction to the warrant of committal to accurately reflect the trial judge's intended credit for pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed his convictions for fraud and breach of trust by a public officer.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing evidence, finding a key witness credible, and applying the elements of fraud.

The appellant had submitted false travel expense claims to the government, claiming $217 per trip while only paying $50 and pocketing the difference.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or credibility.

The court also held that the element of deprivation for fraud was met, as the government would not have paid the claims had it known the truth.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code, alleging that the hospital report contained falsehoods.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the disposition was well-founded on the evidence and that the Board's decision was reasonable.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the trial judge mistakenly stated defence counsel failed to cross-examine the complainant about oral sex.

However, the Court found this error was entitled to very little weight given the totality of the evidence, including the appellant being found naked and intoxicated in the complainant's bed, his failure to testify, and substantial independent corroboration.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and disguise with intent, arguing the trial judge erred in finding him guilty as a party to the offences.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge reasonably inferred the appellant's participation and intent from his involvement in planning, wearing a mask, remaining at the scene during the attack, and fleeing with the principal perpetrator.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for threatening to kill his sister, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention in a forensic unit with limited community privileges.

He sought a conditional discharge or discretion for community living.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety was supported by the evidence, and the disposition was appropriate.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found the Board's decision to be reasonable and saw no reason to interfere.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge misapprehended material aspects of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge specifically addressed the discrepancies raised, including the location of a truck, a phone call, an MSN message, and the complainant's description of the appellant's anatomy.

The Court held the trial judge properly explained why the complainant's evidence was reliable and supported by corroborating evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for break and enter, arguing the verdict was unreasonable under s. 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant contended that the circumstantial evidence, specifically regarding whether he touched moulding after the break and enter, did not support the conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and concluding that a properly instructed jury could reasonably have rendered the same verdict based on the totality of the circumstantial evidence.