Riun Shandler

The appellant appealed the dispositions of the Ontario Review Board and the verdict of unfit to stand trial made by the trial judge.

The Crown conceded that the fitness hearing should have been conducted by a judge and jury under s. 672.26 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal set aside the verdict of unfit to stand trial, declaring the proceeding a nullity, and referred the matter back to the trial court for a fitness hearing before a judge and jury.

The Ontario Review Board's determination was also set aside.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there was a sufficient evidentiary basis, including clear expert opinion on continuing danger, risk assessment, and the appellant's ability to manage his behaviour, to support the Board's decision.

The 15-year-old first offender appealed his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to give apparent weight to the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation.

Noting that the appellant had completed the secure custody portion of his disposition and done well, the Court granted leave to appeal, struck out the open custody portion, and maintained the probation term.

The appellant appealed his conviction on four grounds: lack of juror impartiality, admissibility of discreditable conduct evidence, the trial judge's instruction on discreditable conduct evidence, and the reasonable doubt instruction.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in any of the grounds, noting that defence counsel at trial was satisfied with the juror inquiries and that the evidentiary record did not demonstrate a reasonable possibility of collusion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm against his wife.

At trial, the wife recanted her initial statements to police, testifying that her injuries were caused by an accidental fall.

The trial judge admitted her prior statements to police for their truth under the K.G.B. exception to the hearsay rule, but provided minimal reasons for finding the statements reliable despite the absence of an oath or video recording.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for admitting the hearsay evidence, particularly given the contradictory evidence regarding the circumstances under which the statements were made.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering his transfer from a medium security facility to a maximum security facility (Oak Ridge).

The appellant conceded he posed a significant threat to public safety but argued the Board unreasonably assessed issues of risk and trust.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonably supported by uncontradicted expert evidence regarding the appellant's lack of progress, risk level, and need for a highly structured environment.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter in the death of his infant daughter, who died from extensive intracranial bleeding.

The Crown alleged the death was caused by severe shaking, supported by extensive expert medical testimony.

The appellant appealed, seeking to introduce fresh expert evidence from a forensic neuropathologist and arguing the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment, admitting certain expert evidence, and instructing the jury on reasonable doubt and conflicting medical evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing the adjournment, the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer criteria, and the jury instructions adequately conveyed the necessary legal principles.

The appellant sought prerogative writ relief to prohibit a Superior Court judge from proceeding with sentencing, arguing the judge lacked jurisdiction to order a psychiatric assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that prerogative writ relief does not lie against a Superior Court judge's decision absent a constitutional violation.

The Court further noted the application was an improper attempt to circumvent the rule against interlocutory appeals in criminal trials.

The matter was remitted for sentencing.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assaulting his former girlfriend with a machete.

Prior to sentencing, he brought a motion to strike his guilty plea, claiming he was confused and did not understand the proceedings.

The trial judge dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant comprehended the plea and inferring that his trial counsel had properly ensured he understood its nature and consequences.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, noting that a guilty plea entered by a represented accused is presumed valid and the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving otherwise.

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on two charges of first degree murder.

The Ontario Review Board subsequently determined he was fit to stand trial and ordered him returned to court.

The accused sought to appeal the Review Board's opinion.

The Crown brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion and quashed the appeal, holding that there is no statutory right of appeal from a Review Board's opinion on fitness under section 672.48 of the Criminal Code, and no interlocutory appeals exist in criminal matters.

The appellant appealed a decision of a motions judge who denied an order of prohibition and upheld the trial judge's order for a psychiatric assessment under the Mental Health Act for sentencing purposes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the conclusion that the trial judge exercised her discretion judiciously to obtain information for sentencing, and finding no evidence of bias.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction on two grounds: a reasonable apprehension of bias and misdirection to the jury.

The trial judge had previously acted for the appellant in an earlier appeal of the same charge, creating an appearance of bias despite the appellant's consent to the judge presiding.

Additionally, the trial judge erred by failing to provide a limiting instruction regarding the complainant's delayed emotional outburst and complaint, improperly suggesting it could corroborate her account.

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

The appellant, who had a long history of psychiatric disorders and was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Code provisions governing the disposition of NCR accused.

He argued that section 672.54 of the Criminal Code violated sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada, relying on its concurrent decision in Winko, held that the provisions do not violate the Charter as they are carefully crafted to protect the liberty of the NCR accused while ensuring public safety.

The appeal was dismissed.