Robert Gattrell

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal decision that dismissed an appeal of a conviction.

The appellant argued ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding that the appeal judge's conclusion—that the result would have been the same even with effective assistance—was a finding of fact or mixed fact and law, and therefore did not raise a question of law alone.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault following a jury trial where he did not testify.

During the closing address, Crown counsel commented that the complainant's evidence was uncontradicted and explicitly noted that the accused did not testify and therefore could not be asked what he thought at the time.

The trial judge dismissed a mistrial application.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the Crown's remarks violated both the letter and spirit of s. 4(6) of the Canada Evidence Act by pointedly drawing the jury's attention to the accused's failure to testify and inviting an adverse inference.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and incest against his daughter.

He argued that the information was unsworn, that his Charter rights were violated because his DNA was not in the national databank prior to conviction, and that the trial judge erred in appreciating the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the procedural or Charter arguments and concluding there was ample evidence to support the convictions.

The appellant, an aboriginal offender, appealed her 18-month sentence for aggravated assault, arguing the pre-sentence report fell short of Gladue requirements.

She sought to tender a more comprehensive Gladue report as fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding the original sentence fit and appropriate given the serious violence of the offence and the extreme consequences to the victim.

The appellant appealed a lower court decision, arguing errors in the assessment of credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law by the appeal judge and confirming that the trial judge properly decided the credibility issues and understood the appellant's case.

The young person appealed a conviction entered by a summary conviction appeal judge, arguing a violation of her s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the burden was on the accused to demonstrate a violation and there was no evidence to support the claim.

The failure of police to record that the accused did not wish to speak to a lawyer did not establish a failure to comply with s. 10(b).

The appellant sought to appeal his convictions to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right, relying on a dissent in the court below.

The Supreme Court quashed the appeal, finding that the dissent relied upon could not be construed as a dissent on a question of law alone.

As leave to appeal was not sought, the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference involving two child victims.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made two errors regarding the burden of proof: first, by treating the absence of a finding that the complainant lied as sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; and second, by improperly relying on the complainant's subsequent conviction for sexual assault as corroboration.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of assault and his summary conviction appeal was dismissed.

He appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, failed to apply the W.(D.) framework, and should have drawn an adverse inference from a lack of corroborating evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the summary conviction appeal judge's review, noting that credibility assessments are the province of the trial judge.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of assault and his summary conviction appeal to the Superior Court was dismissed.

He appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility, failed to properly apply the W.D. framework, and should have drawn an adverse inference from the lack of corroborating evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the summary conviction appeal judge's conclusion that the trial judge's findings were reasonable and fully supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

He argued the trial judge misapplied the test for dangerous driving and failed to consider the totality of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence supporting the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's failure to keep a proper lookout and excessive speed in a construction zone constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The court also found no error in principle or manifest unfitness in the sentence, which included a nine-month conditional sentence and a two-year driving prohibition.

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The appellant, a lawyer, pleaded guilty to theft of funds from his trust account and received an 18-month conditional sentence.

He appealed the sentence, arguing for a conditional discharge and claiming he was denied the opportunity to address the court before sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle by the sentencing judge and concluding that the appellant suffered no prejudice as he was represented by competent counsel who made full submissions.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the complainant's evidence, failed to recognize inconsistencies, and provided inadequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and concluding that the reasons were careful, thorough, and satisfied the requirements in R. v. Shepherd.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by failing to address or reconcile contradictions in the arresting officer's testimony concerning the appellant's manner of speech and movements, which formed the basis for the conviction.

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

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery with a firearm, being disguised with intent, and possession of a prohibited firearm.

He argued that the trial judge misapprehended his evidence regarding a backpack and a bandana, as well as the expert fingerprint evidence, and that these errors played an essential part in the conviction.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge's misapprehensions were material to his reasoning process, particularly in applying the doctrine of recent possession, and created positive evidence against the appellant.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a mental health centre.

The Board found he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a substance abuse problem that rendered him aggressive and violent.

The Court of Appeal found no errors of law and held the Board's decision was reasonable.

The appellant's application to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed, as the evidence pertained to his pending annual review and did not show the Board erred in its original decision.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and obstructing justice after brutally beating his pregnant common-law spouse, leaving her with permanent, severe brain damage.

He was sentenced to the maximum of 14 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-trial custody and his guilty plea, resulting in a net sentence of 8 years.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge failed to consider mitigating factors such as his lack of a criminal record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the sentence was at the high end of the range, it was not demonstrably unfit given the extreme violence, devastating impact on the victim, and the appellant's lack of remorse.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction, arguing the trial judge erred by accepting identification evidence without explaining why he rejected the defence submission that the identification was tainted by a risk of collusion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no error, the collusion argument lacked an evidentiary air of reality, and the succinct reasons were sufficient in the circumstances.

The appellant appealed her conviction for uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm, arguing that the Crown failed to prove her identity as the caller and that the trial judge reversed the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to rely on the complainant's voice recognition evidence to establish identity.

The Court also found no reversal of the burden of proof and that the trial judge properly applied the reasonable doubt standard.

The young person appealed a conviction for an offence involving the issue of consent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge failed to resolve significant inconsistencies in the evidence regarding how the complainant met the appellant.

Furthermore, the trial judge erred by merely stating a preference for the complainant's evidence without properly applying the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as required by W.(D.).

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.