Robin Allan Flumerfelt

The respondent was found not criminally responsible for violent offences and detained at a mental health centre.

The Ontario Review Board subsequently granted him an absolute discharge, finding he no longer posed a significant risk to public safety.

The hospital appealed, arguing the decision was unreasonable and seeking to introduce fresh evidence of the respondent's post-discharge deterioration and medication non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal held the Board's initial decision was reasonable on the record before it, but admitted the fresh evidence, which undermined the factual foundation of the Board's disposition.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board for a rehearing.

The appellant, an adult, was convicted of robbery with a weapon and use of an imitation firearm after acting as a lookout or driver for five young offenders who robbed a gas station.

He appealed his convictions and his 18-month sentence, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, failed to give a Vetrovec caution for a defence witness, and imposed a disparate sentence compared to his co-accused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of party liability, and concluding the sentence disparity was justified by the appellant's adult status and conviction for the firearm offence.

The self-represented applicant sought leave to appeal his conviction, challenging the inferences drawn by the trial judge regarding his state of mind.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding that the arguments did not raise questions of law or issues of significance beyond the specific case.

The Crown appealed a non-custodial sentence imposed on the respondent.

The trial judge had relied on the victim's wishes, which were found to be borne of love rather than fear, and the respondent's genuine remorse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentence and noting that the offences were out of character and the respondent was making progress with substance abuse issues.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his application for certiorari and prohibition based on alleged reasonable apprehension of bias and procedural unfairness by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's frustration with delays in a summary impaired driving proceeding and counsel's inability to cooperate was understandable and did not reflect bias.

The court remitted the matter to the Ontario Court of Justice for trial to proceed expeditiously.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter, assault with a weapon, and mischief.

The Court of Appeal set aside the break and enter conviction because the trial judge failed to find that an indictable offence was committed or intended.

The assault with a weapon conviction was also set aside because the trial judge failed to address important exculpatory evidence from the investigating officer.

The court set aside all convictions and ordered a new trial, noting the appellant had already served his sentence.

The young person, charged with first degree murder, brought a motion to refer her detention order to a panel of judges for reconsideration.

She had been detained on tertiary grounds under the Criminal Code.

The motion judge found that the interim release judge correctly considered all circumstances, including the strength of the Crown's case regarding her alleged role as the instigator of the murder.

Finding no reasonable prospect of success on a reconsideration, the motion was dismissed.

The appellants were convicted of sexual assault by a judge and jury.

They appealed their convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in his W.(D.) instruction to the jury and by restricting cross-examination of the complainant regarding an incorrect in-court identification.

One appellant also argued the trial judge erred by revoking his bail mid-trial without hearing submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the jury instructions were appropriate in context, the cross-examination was properly restricted as collateral, and the bail revocation, while procedurally flawed initially, was corrected without prejudicing the fair trial.