Robert Gattrell

The appellant failed to appear for his appeal and provided no documentation to support his claim of illness.

Duty counsel had no contact with the appellant.

As the appellant failed to take any steps to move the appeal forward despite case management directions, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The respondent pled guilty to aggravated assault and was convicted of assault with a weapon after striking one victim with a beer bottle and another with a sword at a house party.

The trial judge imposed a six-month conditional sentence.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that while a conditional sentence was open to the trial judge, the duration and terms were wholly inadequate to address denunciation and general deterrence.

The appeal was allowed and the conditional sentence was increased to two years less seven days, with house arrest for the first seven months.

The appellant appealed his convictions for three counts of sexual interference, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal found that trial counsel failed to properly prepare for trial, including failing to review videotaped statements of the complainants and failing to interview two potential defence witnesses.

Concluding that these omissions prejudiced the appellant and deprived him of a fair trial, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and stayed the charges as the Crown did not seek a new trial.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 15-year parole ineligibility period following a fatal shooting in a park.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by failing to give a correcting instruction regarding unproven suggestions made during cross-examination and by improperly instructing the jury on post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the cross-examination instruction and applying the curative proviso to the post-offence conduct instruction error, given the overwhelming evidence against the appellant.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder for the brutal home invasion and sexual assault of an 81-year-old woman.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 20-year period of parole ineligibility.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge erred in principle by treating the absence of a psychiatric disorder and his failure to assist police as aggravating factors.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding these were merely absent mitigating factors.

Balancing the egregious nature of the offence against the appellant's significant mitigating factors, including his age, lack of criminal record, and evidence that he would not present a future danger, the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the period of parole ineligibility to 16 years.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal decision that upheld her conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, finding that the trial judge had compelling reasons to reject the appellant's evidence, the appeal judge's reasons were sufficient under the Sheppard test, and the proposed fresh evidence could not have affected the verdict.

The appellant hospital appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board granting an absolute discharge to an individual found not criminally responsible for first degree murder.

The Board had previously adjourned the hearing to obtain an independent psychiatric assessment regarding the individual's past criminal involvement.

Despite the assessment failing to resolve these concerns, the Board's majority granted the absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable due to an unexplained gap in its reasoning regarding the relevance of the past criminal conduct and its failure to address inadequacies in the proposed treatment plan for monitoring medication compliance.

The Crown appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board granting the respondent a conditional discharge.

The respondent, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, had previously caused the death of a police officer while psychotic and unmedicated.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, noting the respondent's history of medication non-compliance, social isolation, and lack of relationship with his treatment team.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conditional discharge, and reinstated the hospital detention order permitting residence in the community.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board erred in finding he continued to pose a significant risk to public safety and in denying a conditional discharge.

The appellant had killed his parents while in a severe psychotic state caused by schizophrenia and cannabis use.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, noting the appellant had only been living in the community for seven months and was exposed to a peer group using cannabis.

The Court found it was open to the Board to insist on a greater history of independent compliance before granting a conditional discharge.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a Superior Court decision that dismissed his summary conviction appeal from a 1999 Ontario Court decision.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal heard the matter in his absence and denied leave to appeal, finding that the appeal had no merit and raised no issues of importance beyond the parties.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his application for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition to stop a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The application had been dismissed because the appellant left the courtroom before it was completed.

The Court of Appeal heard the appeal in the appellant's absence and dismissed it as moot and without merit, noting that the trial he sought to stop had already taken place.

The respondent was charged with stunt driving by speeding 50 kph or more over the limit under s. 172 of the Highway Traffic Act.

At trial, she was convicted, but on appeal, the judge found the offence to be one of absolute liability and unconstitutional under s. 7 of the Charter due to the potential for imprisonment.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the offence is one of strict liability, not absolute liability, and therefore does not violate s. 7 of the Charter.

A new trial was ordered to allow the respondent to raise a due diligence defence.

The appellant appealed his sentence and sought to introduce fresh evidence in the form of his wife's affidavit suggesting provocation.

The Court of Appeal refused to admit the fresh evidence because it was available at trial, inconsistent with the defence advanced, and the appellant himself had not claimed provocation.

The court found the sentence imposed at trial was fit and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault involving two young complainants.

The central issue at trial was credibility.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by treating major contradictions and inconsistencies in the complainants' evidence as merely peripheral details.

By failing to properly scrutinize these inconsistencies, the trial judge's credibility assessment was flawed.

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

The Ontario Review Board ordered an independent psychiatric assessment for an accused and directed the Attorney General to pay the costs.

The Attorney General successfully applied to quash the funding order.

The Board appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board lacks jurisdiction under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code to order the Attorney General or any other party to pay for an assessment, and that the Board must bear the costs through its own budget.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, and his designation as a dangerous offender.

The offences involved the severe beating and sexual assault of his former common-law partner.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the court upheld the finding that the appellant, a diagnosed psychopath with a history of domestic abuse, posed a substantial risk of reoffending that could not be reasonably controlled in the community.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge was entitled to conclude the first breath sample was taken within two hours, triggering the statutory presumption.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed because the trial judge imposed an illegal combination of a penitentiary term and three years' probation.

The sentence was varied to a reformatory term of two years less a day and three years' probation, while the lifetime driving prohibition was upheld.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction, arguing that a 15-minute delay before providing a roadside breath sample violated his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a 15-minute delay for the purpose of obtaining a proper breath sample is a justified limitation on the right to counsel, rendering the availability of cell phones irrelevant.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent because his breathalyzer readings were close to the legal limit, presuming a margin of error in the machine.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by presuming a margin of error and acquitting on that basis.

The acquittal was quashed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the phrase 'known to the police' and in delaying the ruling on his stay application until the end of the trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's interpretation reasonable and the timing of the stay ruling a proper exercise of discretion that caused no prejudice.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was deemed fit.