Robert L. Maranger

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and his 34-month sentence arising from intimate partner violence.

He argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on myths and stereotypes regarding delayed reporting and returning to an abusive relationship.

The Court of Appeal found no legal error, concluding the jury was properly equipped to assess credibility.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal but reduced the sentence by one month to remedy post-conviction Charter breaches involving arbitrary detention and an unlawful strip search after bail pending appeal was granted.

The appellant was convicted of possessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material (CSAEM) after a search of his home yielded devices containing over 6,000 images.

On appeal, he challenged the validity of the search warrant, the plain view seizure of a phone on his porch, and his alleged psychological detention during the search.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no Charter breaches during the investigation.

However, the Court found that the appellant's ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights were breached post-sentencing when he was arbitrarily detained and unlawfully strip-searched at Maplehurst Correctional Complex despite having been granted bail pending appeal.

The Court declined to enter a stay of proceedings but reduced his 12-month sentence to 11 months as a remedy under s. 24(1).

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended his evidence due to interpretation issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and upholding the trial judge's credibility assessments.

The appellant also sought a stay of proceedings for Charter breaches arising from his delayed release and strip search at a correctional complex following a bail order.

The Court found his Charter rights were violated and granted a one-month sentence reduction as a remedy.

The applicant father sought decision-making responsibility and parenting time for the parties' child.

Following a three-day trial, the court awarded primary residence and decision-making responsibility to the respondent mother, finding the child was thriving in her care.

The court noted the father's history of anger management issues and unilateral removal of the child, ordering that his parenting time be supervised until he completes an anger management program.

The father's income was determined to be $50,000, and he was ordered to pay $451 per month in child support along with 65% of section 7 expenses.

The plaintiff contractor brought an action for unpaid invoices and to enforce a construction lien related to the restoration of a heritage stone church.

The defendants argued that payment was conditional on financing, the invoices were overstated, and the lien was registered out of time.

The court found no evidence of a financing condition and accepted the plaintiff's evidence regarding the work completed.

The court also determined that the project was abandoned on August 18, 2022, when the site was finally demobilized, making the October 13, 2022 lien registration timely.

The plaintiff was awarded $200,158.25, inclusive of interest.

An appeal concerning a non-publication order imposed under section 517 of the Criminal Code at a bail hearing.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued reasons for decision regarding the applicability and scope of the publication ban, which restricts the publication, broadcast, or transmission of evidence, information, representations, and reasons given at the bail hearing.

The appellants were charged with unlawfully damaging and/or destroying protected rattlesnake habitat contrary to the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

They brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay, which was dismissed by the trial judge.

The appellants then sought certiorari and s. 24(1) Charter relief in Superior Court, arguing the trial judge failed to characterize certain disclosure as "obviously relevant" and failed to attribute all delay to the Crown.

The Superior Court dismissed both applications.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no jurisdictional error and rejecting the argument that the degree of relevance of outstanding disclosure alleviates the defence's obligation to act diligently.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

The conviction appeal raised two grounds: first, that the trial judge failed to address frailties in the complainant's evidence and material inconsistencies, and second, that the trial judge erred in her section 11(b) Charter analysis regarding defence delay.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's credibility assessment or her apportionment of delay.

The appellant received a two-year custodial sentence for a serious sexual assault of a 13-year-old child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, finding the sentence fit and appropriate.

Summary conviction appeal from convictions on two counts of sexual assault and one count of criminal harassment.

The appellant, a massage therapist, was convicted of sexually assaulting a client during a massage therapy session on April 24, 2018.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally and inappropriately touched the complainant's breasts and vaginal area.

The trial judge accepted the complainant's testimony over the appellant's defence that any contact was accidental and part of legitimate treatment.

The appeal raised three grounds: failure to reconcile material inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, uneven scrutiny applied to the appellant's evidence compared to the complainant's, and insufficient reasons regarding the essential elements of sexual assault.

The appellate court dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the convictions.

The accused, J.D., was charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of M.E.H. The victim was lured to a park by A.H. at J.D.'s behest, as revenge for a social media insult against J.D.'s deceased friend.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the shooter.

The court found the shooting to be an execution-style murder, thus planned and deliberate.

While one Crown witness's testimony (Z.L.) was largely rejected, the combined effect of another witness's testimony (A.H.), J.D.'s statement to police, cell phone data, video evidence, and intercepted communications led the court to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that J.D. was responsible.

J.D. was found guilty of first-degree murder.

The court addressed a constitutional challenge to section 14 of the Security of Information Act, which criminalizes the unauthorized communication of special operational information by persons permanently bound to secrecy.

The challenge argued that the term "without authority" was unconstitutionally vague, violating section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the term was not vague when interpreted in its statutory context, particularly for the specific class of individuals to whom it applies.

It clarified that "without authority" pertains to the actus reus of the offence, meaning the power or right to act, derived from one's official position or a superior's grant of authority.

The offender, a high-ranking civilian member of the RCMP, was convicted of communicating special operational information to targets of international investigations, breach of trust, and unauthorized use of a computer.

The Crown sought 22 to 25 years' imprisonment, while the defence sought a sentence of time served (seven years).

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's extreme breach of trust and the potential risk to undercover operations, but also considered his historically good character and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court imposed a total sentence of 14 years' imprisonment, reduced by 2400 days of pre-trial custody credit, leaving 7 years and 155 days to serve.

The Crown brought an application under s. 486(1) of the Criminal Code to exclude the public and media from the courtroom during the testimony of the accused and three other witnesses due to national security concerns.

The accused, a former civilian member of the RCMP, was charged under the Security of Information Act.

Applying the Sherman Estate test for discretionary limits on court openness, the court found a serious risk that classified information could be inadvertently disclosed during cross-examination.

The court granted the order, directing that the public be excluded during the specified testimony, but required that vetted transcripts be released as soon as possible to balance the open court principle with national security interests.

The accused, Cameron Ortis, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 38.14 of the Canada Evidence Act, arguing that non-disclosure of highly classified information by the Crown compromised his right to a fair trial and full answer and defence.

The court dismissed counts 5 to 8 of the indictment, finding that the prohibited classified information was of immense importance to Ortis's defence regarding the mens rea element of those charges, making the national security interests and fair trial rights irreconcilable.

However, the court denied the stay for counts 1 to 4, 9, and 10, determining that the non-disclosure did not sufficiently impact Ortis's ability to present his defence for those charges.

Emmanuel Pinard was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The sentencing judge considered aggravating factors, including a significant criminal record with prior firearm and violence convictions, and mitigating factors such as family support and respect for the court.

The Crown sought a 6-year sentence, while the offender sought time served (approximately 1 year 1 month).

The court determined the appropriate range for this standalone offence was akin to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm (3-6 years).

A sentence of 3 years and 4 months incarceration was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 2 years 2.5 months remaining.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, a lifetime firearm prohibition, and a non-communication order.

The applicant, a former high-ranking civilian member of the RCMP charged with serious national security offences under the Security of Information Act, sought a bail review after spending over three years in pre-trial custody.

Following the dismissal of four of the ten charges against him, the court found a material change in circumstances.

The court concluded that the applicant met his onus on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, noting that the passage of time and strict proposed conditions mitigated the risks of flight, reoffending, and loss of public confidence.

The application was granted, and the applicant was released on strict conditions including house arrest and GPS monitoring.

Intact Insurance brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party defendant in an action arising from alleged water damage caused by its insured, Lucas Roofing.

Intact had previously defended the insured under a reservation of rights but denied coverage after the insured repeatedly failed to cooperate with the investigation and discovery process.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing Intact would take a position adverse to its insured.

The court granted the motion, finding that Intact had a clear interest in the outcome under s. 132(1) of the Insurance Act and that no true prejudice would result to the existing parties.

The applicant, who previously pled guilty to possession and distribution of child pornography, applied to have his name removed from the sex offender registry and his reporting requirements terminated.

Despite having received a record suspension and demonstrating significant rehabilitation, the applicant argued that the reporting requirements caused him severe anxiety and hindered his employment opportunities.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's anxiety and fear of discovery did not meet the high burden of establishing an impact that is grossly disproportionate to the public interest in maintaining the registry.

Byron Carr, charged with mischief, obstructing police, and failure to obey a court order related to the "freedom convoy" occupation, brought a s. 520 bail review.

The Crown conceded a material change in circumstances.

The court granted bail, finding that the tertiary ground for detention was inapplicable given the mass nature of the alleged crimes and varying degrees of culpability.

The applicant satisfied the primary and secondary grounds for release with a new, robust plan, including two sureties (one a retired police officer), a $3500 bond, and strict conditions on social media, communication with organizers, and travel to Ottawa.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board, which upheld a psychiatrist's finding that the appellant was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia.

The appellant argued the Board misapplied the legal test for capacity and made a palpable and overriding error in its factual findings.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test for capacity under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, and that its factual findings regarding the appellant's inability to appreciate the manifestations of his mental condition and the foreseeable consequences of treatment decisions were supported by the evidence.