Riun Shandler

The appellant, who had previously been found not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of a mental disorder, appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at a mental health facility.

The Review Board had concluded that the appellant posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, largely based on his history of medication non-compliance and marijuana use leading to mental deterioration.

The Court of Appeal found that the Review Board's conclusion was unreasonable, as the attending psychiatrist's opinion was uncertain and the appellant's history did not demonstrate a significant likelihood of physical violence.

The appeal was allowed and an absolute discharge was ordered.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge and community living privileges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant risk to public safety was reasonable based on unchallenged evidence.

The Court also found the Board's assessment regarding community living privileges was reasonable, though it directed that future reviews include more information regarding the appellant's aboriginal status and a future-looking treatment plan.

The appellant, a sex trade worker, was convicted of second-degree murder after a client was found stabbed to death in his car.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge erred by failing to give a limiting instruction regarding bad character evidence, improperly allowing cross-examination on her prior assault convictions under a Corbett application, and delivering an unbalanced jury charge that failed to adequately summarize the defence's evidence.

The Court of Appeal agreed with all three grounds, finding that the cumulative effect of the errors prejudiced the appellant's right to a fair trial.

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

The Crown moved to quash an appeal from a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) verdict on a dual procedure offence.

The matter originally started as a fitness hearing and proceeded without an election by the Crown or the accused as to the mode of trial, and without arraignment or plea.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash, finding that it could not be presumed the Crown proceeded summarily.

Given the procedural flaws, the Crown conceded the appeal must be allowed.

The NCR verdict was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction and 30-month sentence for a sexual offence.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the complainant, who had been intoxicated, and a defence witness.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, noting the complainant's evidence on consent was supported by other witnesses and there was a basis to discount the defence witness's evidence due to bias.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, and the 30-month sentence was upheld as fit.

The appellant was convicted ex parte of driving while his licence was suspended and sentenced to 10 days in jail and a $7,500 fine.

He appealed, arguing that the ex parte trial provisions of the Provincial Offences Act violated his Charter rights under ss. 7 and 11(d).

The Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the ex parte trial provisions, finding that they merely provide a mechanism for proceeding when a defendant fails to appear.

The conviction appeal was dismissed as the appellant offered no valid explanation for his non-attendance.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, and the fine was reduced to the statutory minimum of $5,000 because the trial judge provided no reasons for exceeding the minimum requested by the prosecutor.

The appellant pleaded guilty to eight counts of armed robbery and a weapons offence, receiving a global sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to properly apply the principle of parity, as his co-accused received a lesser sentence for the robberies despite wielding the weapons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the 10-year sentence fit and the disparity justified by the appellant's lengthy criminal record, probation status, and poorer prospects for rehabilitation compared to his co-accused.

The appellant appealed his convictions.

The Crown acknowledged that fresh evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated the appellant did not commit the crimes.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, set aside the convictions, and entered acquittals.

The appellant was convicted of infanticide in 1999 based on the expert pathology evidence of Dr. Charles Smith, who opined that her four-month-old son was smothered.

Following the Goudge Inquiry, fresh expert evidence conclusively refuted Dr. Smith's findings, demonstrating that the child likely died of accidental asphyxia in an unsafe sleeping environment.

The Crown conceded that the fresh evidence should be admitted and the conviction quashed.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal, noting the profound miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention in a maximum secure facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition was reasonable, supported by evidence, and the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available.

The Court agreed that any disposition below maximum security would compromise public safety and rejected the appellant's request for an absolute discharge.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for a sexual assault conviction where the Crown had proceeded by indictment.

The Court of Appeal held that the conditional sentence was illegal under section 742.1 of the Criminal Code and set it aside.

However, given the respondent's positive rehabilitative steps, time spent on bail, and time served under house arrest, the Court substituted a sentence of time served.

The applicant, whose conviction for first degree murder was set aside and a new trial ordered, sought a review of a decision denying him judicial interim release.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in denying bail on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

Given the applicant's previous compliance with bail conditions for five and a half years, his age, the weakness of the Crown's case, and the presumption of innocence, the Court concluded that his detention was not necessary for public safety or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for release was granted.

The appellant appealed a verdict of not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder, which was entered on his consent at trial.

He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, but the appointed amicus curiae found no basis for this claim.

The Court of Appeal held there was no evidence that the appellant's consent was involuntary, equivocal, or uninformed, and found the NCR verdict was reasonable based on the psychiatric assessment and the appellant's history.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board detaining him at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

At the hearing, the appellant conceded he obtained the placement he sought.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board was justified in rejecting the request for an absolute discharge given uncontroverted evidence that the appellant continued to present a significant threat to the public.

The appellants appealed their convictions.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in foreclosing the appellants from challenging the factual underpinnings of the counselling to commit murder charges for which the appellant Vanderheyden stood convicted.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that the counselling convictions provided a significant boost to the credibility of two unsavoury witnesses.

The court found that the curative proviso could not be applied, as it could not be satisfied that Vanderheyden would not have testified had the trial judge ruled differently.

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

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder, attempted murder, and manslaughter as a secondary participant in a multiple shooting committed by a principal offender.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the elements of secondary participation, the use of after-the-fact conduct, and bad character evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the jury instructions on secondary participation in first degree murder and attempted murder were seriously flawed and failed to articulate the essential elements the prosecution had to prove.

A new trial was ordered for the murder and attempted murder counts, and the sentence for the manslaughter conviction was reduced to 12 years.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a maximum secure facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably applied the criteria in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

The Board was entitled to rely on the appellant's sexually violent history, stalking history, institutional offences, and psychopathy to conclude that maximum security was the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The self-represented appellant appealed his conviction, arguing constitutional violations from his first trial and errors by the trial judge in his second trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly rejected the appellant's defences under s. 27 and s. 37 of the Criminal Code, as well as his Charter claims under s. 7 and s. 11(b).

The Court noted that the appellant's defences were based on delusions caused by mental disorder, which properly supported the trial judge's verdict of Not Criminally Responsible on account of Mental Disorder (NCR-MD).

The appellants appealed their sentences, arguing the trial judge erred in principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered the guilty pleas.

Given the appellants' serious criminal records and the fact that the offences were committed while on probation or parole, the sentences were not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by admitting an agreed statement of facts from a previous mistrial and that doing so violated his s. 13 Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the statement was a voluntary admission and not equivalent to prior testimony.

However, based on fresh medical evidence, the court granted leave to appeal the sentence and deleted the requirement for 200 hours of community service from the appellant's conditional sentence.