Robert J. Sharpe

The appellants appealed a jury verdict in a medical malpractice action arising from the death of Kerry Samms from cancer.

The jury found that the defendants, including the family physician Dr. Wilraad Lottering, had not fallen below the standard of care.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's jury instructions on two grounds: (1) the standard of care instruction, arguing the jury was improperly directed to rely solely on expert evidence and could not apply common sense to determine whether standard medical practices were themselves negligent; and (2) the error of judgment instruction, arguing it was inappropriate in a case involving administrative failures rather than clinical judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that when read contextually, the jury instructions properly conveyed the applicable legal principles and that the jury would have understood they could apply common sense to assess whether standard practices were negligent.

Crown appeal of a nine-year sentence imposed on an accused who pleaded guilty to eight counts of sexual assault, eight counts of making child pornography, and one count of possession of child pornography.

The accused, employed as an early childhood educator at a daycare centre, touched and photographed the genitals of sleeping toddlers and possessed a massive collection of graphic child pornography.

The trial judge imposed six years for sexual assault, one year consecutive for making child pornography, and two years consecutive for possession of child pornography.

The Crown sought 15 years, arguing the sentence failed to satisfy the totality principle and violated section 718.3(7) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 718.3(7) is subject to the totality principle and that the nine-year sentence was fit and consistent with sentencing principles for such offences.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder in connection with a home invasion robbery in Minden, Ontario.

The appellant and three co-accused drove from Scarborough to commit the robbery, which resulted in the death of Ryan Kennedy.

The appellant struck Kennedy in the jaw with the butt of a pellet gun after Kennedy had already been struck twice on the head with a baseball bat by a co-accused.

The appellant appealed on two grounds: first, that there was insufficient evidence that his blow was a significant contributing cause of death, and second, that a statement by the trial Crown in closing argument caused a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury's verdict was reasonable and that any improper Crown statement did not materially influence the verdict.

An appeal from a conviction and sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant appealed both the conviction entered on October 10, 2017, and the sentence imposed on November 24, 2017.

However, the conviction appeal was not pursued during oral argument by either duty counsel or the appellant, and accordingly the conviction appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered by a jury on June 17, 2016.

The grounds of appeal raised only questions of fact as found by the jury, with no questions of law raised.

The appellate court found that there was evidence to support the jury's verdict and identified no grounds that would justify appellate intervention.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of multiple counts of sexual interference and sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the convictions on Charter grounds and contested the trial judge's findings regarding his status as a person in authority, the sexual purpose of the conduct, and alleged collusion among complainants.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions and the custodial sentence.

However, the sentence appeal was partially allowed, with the court setting aside a ten-year weapons prohibition and a victim fine surcharge that were inconsistent with the trial judge's findings.

A lifetime SOIRA order was upheld as appropriate.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence imposed on June 10, 2015 by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Crown conceded that a SOIRA order was improperly made.

The appellant abandoned his appeal on all other grounds.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent of removing the SOIRA order.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault perpetrated over a lengthy period against his seven-year-old nephew and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged both the conviction and the sentence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed as there was no basis in the record for the appellant's contentions that the trial judge erred in believing the complainant or that the complainant's testimony was coerced.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly apply the principle of parity and did not give appropriate weight to mitigating factors including the appellant's youth, absence of prior criminal record, prior victimization, and intellectual disability.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding that the trial judge had properly considered all relevant factors.

The sentence appeal was allowed only to the extent of vacating the victim fine surcharge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm and the sentence imposed.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) that the trial judge pre-judged the case based on a prior domestic murder conviction; (2) that the trial judge erred in believing the complainant despite her potential financial motive to lie; and (3) that the trial judge failed to adequately account for the absence of the appellant's DNA on the hammer and complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no basis for the pre-judgment claim, that the trial judge properly assessed the complainant's credibility, and that the absence of DNA evidence was not determinative given the complainant's accepted testimony.

The conviction appeal was dismissed and the sentence appeal was dismissed as moot.

The appellant appealed his conviction on three grounds: (1) the trial judge erred in excluding defence expert evidence on recovered memory; (2) the trial judge erred in relying on British Columbia jurisprudence regarding recovered memory; and (3) the trial judge erred in dismissing inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, rendering the verdict unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly excluded the expert evidence as it would impermissibly comment on credibility, that the trial judge's analysis of the complainant's evidence was thorough and contextually appropriate, and that the identified inconsistencies did not raise a reasonable doubt regarding the core allegations.

The appellant appealed a conviction from the Ontario Court of Justice, which had been upheld on summary conviction appeal.

The appellant contended that the trial judge erred with respect to alibi evidence, identity evidence from a Crown witness, and by not holding a voir dire on a particular issue.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasoning of both the trial judge and the summary conviction appeal judge, and refused to grant leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed a sentence of 18 months imposed on June 2, 2018 by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the 18-month sentence, finding that the trial judge did not err in imposing it on top of pre-trial custody, as this was a joint submission clearly understood by all parties during extensive pre-trial discussions.

The court rejected the appellant's request for additional credit for pre-trial custody.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to remove the victim fine surcharge, which the Crown conceded should be set aside.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the victim fine surcharge totalling $900 (comprised of 7 fines).

All other aspects of the appeal were dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his sentence for sexual interference and sexual assault, both involving the same complainant and occurring within the same date range.

The trial judge imposed consecutive two-year sentences on both counts.

The Court of Appeal found that the two counts were alternative ways of pleading the same incidents rather than distinct offences, and therefore one count should have been stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The court allowed the appeal, stayed count 6, and set aside any victim surcharge.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering her detention on the secure forensic unit at Providence Care Hospital, Kingston.

The appellant, who suffers from schizoaffective disorder with persecutory delusions, sought an absolute discharge, or alternatively a conditional discharge or transfer to CAMH.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's determination that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety was reasonable, and that a conditional discharge was premature given the ongoing nature of her delusions and the need for medication optimization.

On appeal from a trial judgment ordering the sale of the matrimonial home, the appellant challenged the order on the grounds that the trial judge failed to consider the best interests of the parties' three children who had resided in the home since the 2012 separation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge properly considered the relevant criteria and the best interests of the children.

The respondent had a prima facie right to partition and sale, and the appellant failed to demonstrate malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct that would preclude the sale.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellant appealed his sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice for possession of fentanyl.

The trial judge had imposed consecutive sentences of two years and six years for possession of fentanyl, with both counts relating to drugs found in two different places in the appellant's residence on the same day.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by providing no explanation for making these sentences consecutive when they involved possession of the same drug in the same place on the same day.

The court altered the sentence by making the sentences concurrent.

The Crown conceded that a victim surcharge of $1,200 must be set aside.

The appellant appealed his sentence for three counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The Crown and defence had jointly submitted a non-custodial sentence with probation and community service, but the sentencing judge rejected the joint submission and imposed an intermittent sentence of 75 days' imprisonment, three years' probation, 240 hours of community service, a five-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred in rejecting the joint submission and that the sentencing process was unfair.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the rejection of the joint submission and no procedural unfairness.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault against a friend of his and his long-time girlfriend.

The case rested largely on the complainant's recognition of the appellant as a man she saw standing in a doorway for several seconds immediately after waking up in a dark room, and on the appellant's equivocal responses when confronted by his girlfriend about the allegations.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by instructing the jury that recognition evidence of a known person is different from identification evidence of a stranger, when in fact recognition evidence is subject to the same frailties and risks.

The trial judge also erred by failing to instruct the jury on the dangers of relying on reaction evidence, particularly where the accused was confronted with vague allegations and given no details of the specific conduct alleged.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant sought to appeal his conviction and sentence from the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant abandoned the appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The court also vacated any victim fine surcharge that may have been part of the appellant's sentence.