Riun Shandler

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder after allegedly killing a criminal associate to prevent him from exposing their involvement in a prior convenience store robbery and murder.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in his instructions on reasonable doubt, that Crown misconduct deprived him of a fair trial, and that the trial judge failed to give a proper Vetrovec warning for unsavoury witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the standard of proof, the Crown's misconduct did not irreparably prejudice the right to a fair trial, and the verdict would have been the same even with a stronger Vetrovec warning given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing the trial judge misapplied the burden of proof by treating the case as a credibility contest between him and the police officer.

The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the trial judge's reasons adequately explained why the appellant's evidence was rejected and that it was implicit she found his testimony incredible, leaving no reasonable doubt.

The appellant was convicted of fraud over $5,000 relating to a mortgage scheme.

He appealed his conviction on the grounds of an unreasonable verdict and a reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found that while there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, the trial judge's active role in eliciting evidence and making adverse comments about the credibility of Crown witnesses during their testimony created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

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

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity in 1981, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision refusing him an absolute discharge.

The Board had concluded he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to concerns about alcohol abuse and personality disorder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable as it was contrary to the evidence of his treatment team and unsupported by the record.

The court set aside the Board's order and granted the appellant an absolute discharge.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that although the Board did not have the benefit of the most recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the conditions imposed were the least onerous and restrictive possible.

The Board's decision was reasonable and consistent with the available evidence.

The appellant appealed the dispositions of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere as the Board did not misapprehend the evidence and its decision to override the joint submission was reasonable.

The appellant, unrepresented at his summary conviction appeal, attempted to argue that the trial judge improperly handled numerous witness subpoenas he had served.

The summary conviction appeal judge repeatedly interrupted and declined to hear submissions on this issue.

The Court of Appeal held that the summary conviction appeal judge erred by refusing to hear the appellant's submissions regarding the trial subpoenas, as this went to the fairness of the trial.

The conviction appeal was allowed and a new hearing was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possessing ammunition while subject to a prohibition order under s. 100(2) of the Criminal Code.

He argued the original order was invalid because it failed to specify a reasonable period for surrendering ammunition as required by s. 100(13).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that challenging the validity of the original order constituted an impermissible collateral attack.

The court also found the actus reus was proven, as possessing ammunition three years after the order exceeded any reasonable time limit, and dismissed a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting his wife and appealed his conviction.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of his prior discreditable conduct with his wife and similar fact evidence from his former common law wife.

The Court of Appeal held the prior discreditable conduct was admissible to provide context, show motive, and explain the complainant's delay in reporting.

While the trial judge erred in the basis for admitting the similar fact evidence, the Court applied the Handy framework and found the evidence was properly admissible as its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, was transferred from a medium security facility to a maximum security facility by order of the Ontario Review Board.

The Review Board concluded that the 'least onerous and least restrictive' test under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code did not apply to the specific conditions of the disposition.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the 'least onerous and least restrictive' requirement applies to the disposition order as a whole, including its conditions.

The Court found that the Review Board committed an error of law and that the Crown failed to demonstrate that no substantial wrong occurred, entitling the appellant to a re-hearing.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a medium secure hospital unit.

He argued the Board erred in finding he remained a significant threat to public safety and that detention was the least onerous disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's risk assessment and disposition were reasonable given the appellant's untreated schizoaffective disorder and history of threatening behaviour.

The Court also rejected arguments that the participation of amicus curiae rendered the hearing unfair.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay charges against the respondents due to a 33-month delay, which breached their s. 11(b) Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that the delay was unacceptable and reflected a culture that failed to prioritize timely trial dates.

The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted murder and aggravated assault, as well as his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury on the appellant's defence of lack of intent due to intoxication regarding the attempted murder charge.

The conviction for attempted murder was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The conviction for aggravated assault against a second victim was upheld, but the sentence was reduced from eight years to four years on a joint submission.

The appellant appealed his conviction.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault.

The Crown conceded that evidence of the appellant's impending jail term should not have been admitted at trial.

However, the Court of Appeal found that the admission of this evidence did not cause any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The appeals against both conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay two charges of sexual interference due to a 31-month delay between the accused's arrest and the proposed trial date.

The trial judge had attributed delays caused by the defence's difficulties in serving third-party record materials to systemic or Crown delay.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in this characterization, determining that approximately 15 months of the delay should not be attributed to the Crown.

The remaining 16 months of systemic delay fell within the acceptable range for matters in the Superior Court of Justice.

The appeal was allowed and the stay of proceedings was set aside.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a vicious assault.

At trial, the Crown introduced telephone records under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act to rebut the appellant's alibi that he was with his former wife at the time of the offence.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to consider whether the records were made in the usual and ordinary course of business and their reliability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the records were properly admitted and reliable.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 3-year sentence for the vicious attack was not manifestly unreasonable.

The appellant appealed his assault conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in determining the location of the assault.

The Court of Appeal held it was open to the trial judge to infer the assault occurred at the complainant's room based on the absence of a blood trail.

The Court also found that any misapprehension of evidence regarding the appellant's brother's cooperation with police was not material to the result.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention.

The Court of Appeal applied the standard of review from R. v. Owen, assessing whether the Board's risk assessment and disposition order was unreasonable.

The Court found the disposition was reasonable and represented the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available on the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a 1978 murder.

After years of gradual release, he resumed substance abuse and the Review Board ordered his continued detention at a psychiatric hospital, finding him a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal set aside the Board's order as unreasonable and directed an absolute discharge, while refusing to admit fresh evidence of recent violent behaviour.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the Board's decision was not unreasonable given its expertise and the evidence of the respondent's resumed cocaine use.

The Court also held that the fresh evidence should have been admitted in the interests of justice.