Robert F. Goddard

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medication for schizophrenia.

The appellant argued the Board misapplied the test for capacity and failed to consider relevant evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the Board applied the correct legal test under the Health Care Consent Act and reasonably concluded that the appellant's mental disorder prevented him from appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of refusing treatment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence for making an arrangement to commit a sexual offence against a child contrary to s. 172.2 of the Criminal Code and breach of probation.

The trial judge imposed 4 years' imprisonment, a DNA order, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a lifetime blanket prohibition on Internet and digital network use.

The appellant sought to reduce the custodial sentence to three years and to narrow the Internet prohibition.

The appellate court upheld the custodial sentence but found the lifetime blanket Internet prohibition to be overbroad and varied it to impose more measured restrictions tailored to the offender's circumstances.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a global sentence of six years imposed for multiple offences including dangerous driving, attempted robbery, attempted theft, possession of stolen property, possession of instruments for breaking and entering, and driving while disqualified.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in failing to give adequate weight to Gladue factors relating to the appellant's Aboriginal background, intergenerational trauma, and systemic disadvantage.

The court reduced the sentence to four years, emphasizing that Gladue principles apply to serious offences and that consideration of such factors does not constitute a race-based discount but rather recognizes reduced moral blameworthiness and the disproportionate representation of Aboriginal peoples in the prison system.

An appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention at Brockville Mental Health Centre following a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing that the Board's conclusion that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, particularly regarding the change in his diagnosis from schizophrenia to antisocial personality disorder and the role of cannabis use.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments and dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion reasonable based on the revised diagnosis, evidence linking cannabis use to psychotic symptoms, a history of substance abuse, and a pattern of aggressive and violent behavior.

The appellant appealed his sentence for criminal harassment, careless use of a firearm, threatening to cause bodily harm, and two breaches of weapons prohibition orders.

The sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of two years and six months, reduced by 18 months to reflect 12 months actual pre-sentence custody.

The appellant challenged the sentencing decision on multiple grounds, including the failure to give additional credit for interim release conditions, the characterization of the firearm use, and post-sentence rehabilitative efforts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's discretionary decisions.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered on October 17, 2013 by Justice Hugh McLean of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury.

The appellant made brief submissions on the conviction appeal and tendered fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's submissions did not call into question the validity of the convictions and that the fresh evidence was inadmissible.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an NCRMD verdict for uttering threats and breaching a probation order.

At trial, the verdict was based on a psychiatric assessment diagnosing the appellant with schizophrenia.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence from new psychiatrists indicating he was misdiagnosed and actually suffered from bipolar disorder, and that his psychosis at the time of the offence was substance-induced.

The court admitted the fresh evidence under the Palmer test, finding the original diagnosis was incorrect.

The court set aside the NCRMD verdict, entered a conviction, and imposed a sentence of one day, noting the appellant had already spent 28 months in a secure psychiatric facility.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the sentence imposed.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty of non-consensual anal intercourse with the complainant.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to consider evidence supporting a defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent, applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence, and misapprehended evidence regarding the complainant's moans.

The Court of Appeal rejected all grounds of appeal, finding that the evidence did not support the mistaken belief defence, that the trial judge applied consistent standards in assessing credibility, and that any misapprehension of evidence did not affect the conviction.

On sentencing, the Court found one error regarding the characterization of abuse of a spouse or common-law partner, but concluded this did not materially affect the sentence imposed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm following a physical altercation with a co-worker.

The appellant admitted to kicking the complainant in the face but claimed self-defence.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence and accepted the testimony of an eyewitness, concluding the kick was not in self-defence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing witness credibility and resolving factual issues.

The Superior Court of Justice found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility findings and dismissed the appeal.