Roger Shallow

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and mischief arising from an incident on a public bus.

The Court of Appeal previously dismissed the sexual assault conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal.

In this endorsement regarding the mischief conviction, the Court found that the trial judge erred by convicting the appellant without particularizing the property interfered with or conducting a separate analysis of the elements of the offence.

The mischief conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter as a party under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code after his co-accused stabbed the victim during a group fight.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in her instructions to the jury on self-defence, consent, and the use of a prior inconsistent statement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge's instruction on consent was confusing and may have improperly led the jury to consider the stab wounds when determining if the victim consented to the initial fight.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for sexual assault and mischief arising from an incident where he touched the complainant and raised her skirt on a public bus.

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

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the original sentence of six months' imprisonment was wholly disproportionate for a first offender with 13 days of pre-sentence custody.

The sentence was varied to a suspended sentence with two years' probation.

The appellant applied to rescind an order dismissing his appeal of a dangerous driving conviction as abandoned, and to set aside his guilty plea on the basis that he was misinformed by trial counsel regarding the length of his licence suspension.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, noting that the guilty plea was part of a broader plea bargain involving other charges.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the appellant applying to set aside all of his convictions, as the interests of justice require a full consideration of the entire plea bargain.

The appellant sought to institute a private prosecution against the Chief Firearms Officer of Ontario for declining to issue an unconditional firearms transport authorization.

A Justice of the Peace declined to authorize the private prosecution following a pre-enquete hearing, and the Superior Court upheld this decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no jurisdictional error by the Justice of the Peace and noting that any authorization to transport a restricted firearm must comply with the condition to name specified places under the Firearms Act.

The appellants were convicted of firearms offences arising from their unlicensed possession of over 200 firearms and ammunition.

The trial judge ordered the mandatory forfeiture of the firearms under s. 491(1)(b) of the Criminal Code but declined to order forfeiture of the ammunition.

On appeal, the appellants argued the forfeiture violated s. 12 of the Charter as cruel and unusual punishment.

The Court of Appeal held that a forfeiture order is a sentence and appealable, but found the mandatory forfeiture was not grossly disproportionate and did not violate s. 12.

The Court also varied the order to include the ammunition, finding the trial judge erred in his interpretation of s. 95(1).

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in principle by failing to consider that this was his first period of incarceration and by miscalculating pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal agreed, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Summers to grant 115 days of pre-sentence credit.

The appeal was allowed, the sentence was reduced to 12 months' imprisonment, and specific probation conditions were varied.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, sexual assault, and uttering death threats, as well as his four-year sentence.

He argued his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to oppose the admission of the deceased complainant's preliminary inquiry evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the appellant had declined the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant at the preliminary inquiry and had agreed with his counsel's advice at trial.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentencing judge properly considered all principles, and rehabilitation played no significant role given the appellant's lack of remorse and prior record.

The Crown appealed the 90-day intermittent sentence and three years' probation imposed on a first-time offender for possession of a loaded firearm and possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number.

The sentencing judge had erroneously concluded that a conditional sentence was statutorily unavailable for both counts and imposed a single global sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that while a conditional sentence was unavailable for the loaded firearm count, it was available for the defaced serial number count.

The court substituted individual sentences totaling two years less a day, allowing the offender to serve the majority of the sentence in the community to continue her rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault of a severely disabled resident at a long-term care facility where he worked.

The conviction was based primarily on the testimony of a co-worker who witnessed the assault.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in applying the W. (D.) test for credibility and subjected the defence and Crown evidence to unequal scrutiny.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the W. (D.) principles and did not apply a different standard of scrutiny to the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) was misleading because it omitted the phrase 'he is not a drinker', failed to state that no one smelled alcohol on his breath, and because the officer testified at the preliminary inquiry that he only had a 'suspicion' rather than reasonable and probable grounds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no meaningful difference caused by the omissions and accepting the officer's explanation at trial, which negated any suggestion of an attempt to mislead.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences, assaulting a police officer, failing to comply with a recognizance, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended inconsistencies in the police officers' evidence and failed to properly address allegations of police collusion and fabrication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge adequately addressed the inconsistencies and reasonably concluded that the officers did not fabricate their evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for offences including uttering threats.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge correctly instructed himself on credibility and did not misapprehend the evidence.

The trial judge's rejection of the appellant's denial as self-serving was upheld.

Regarding the sentence, the global sentence was at the low end of the range due to mitigating factors, and the court found no error in the trial judge's refusal to impose a conditional sentence or his decision to impose a concurrent sentence for uttering threats.

The conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual offences.

He argued the trial judge failed to properly apply the W.D. test for assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge correctly articulated and applied the test, noting the Crown's burden of proof remained even if the accused's testimony was not believed.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as there was no error justifying appellate intervention.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for several firearms offences and mischief.

The trial judge had adjourned sentencing to allow the respondent to accumulate enough pre-sentence custody to serve his sentence in a provincial reformatory rather than a penitentiary, and imposed concurrent sentences totalling two years less a day.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the adjournment inappropriate, the characterization of the gun offences as 'minimal' erroneous, and the imposition of concurrent sentences for distinct offences incorrect.

The total sentence was increased to 4 years and 9 months.

The appellant was discharged at a preliminary inquiry on several firearm offences due to insufficient evidence of constructive possession.

The Crown successfully applied for certiorari and mandamus, and the application judge quashed the discharge and committed the appellant for trial.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge did not err in her consideration of the evidence as a whole, and that any error in assessing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence was not jurisdictional and therefore not reviewable on certiorari.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences after a handgun was found in his pocket during a traffic stop.

He argued the stop under the Highway Traffic Act was a ruse for an unconstitutional criminal investigation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the stop was legitimate and not a pretext.

The court also dismissed an application to admit fresh evidence, finding it failed the Palmer test.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and his 12-month sentence.

He argued the trial judge failed to adequately address contradictions in evidence and failed to give proper reasons for credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient and complied with the standard for adequacy of reasons.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as a 12-month sentence for sexual assault involving a minor child and a breach of trust was not manifestly unfit.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault, assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon, and failing to comply with a probation order.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in admitting a witness statement as past recollection recorded, as the witness could not definitively say he was telling the truth when he gave it.

Without this statement, several convictions were unreasonable or lacked corroboration.

The court also found the trial judge materially misapprehended identification evidence on another count.

The appeal was allowed, acquittals entered on some counts, and a new trial ordered for the remainder.