Samuel Umberto Mazzuca

The appellant, an investment adviser, was convicted of fraud, theft, and obstructing a police officer after misappropriating funds from his clients.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge misapplied the reasonable doubt standard and the W.(D.) framework.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly instructed himself, made cogent factual findings supported by the evidence, and correctly concluded that the appellant knowingly deceived his clients and made evasive statements to the investigating police officer.

The appellant pleaded guilty to firearms offences and was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred by granting inadequate credit for strict pre-sentence bail conditions and by misapplying the framework for considering systemic anti-Black racism.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge made no error in principle in quantifying the bail credit and correctly applied the requirement to find 'some connection' between the appellant's experiences of racism and the offences.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal allowed.

The appellant, an Indigenous individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's refusal to order a Gladue Report for his next annual review.

The Board had deemed the report premature, suggesting it would be more beneficial after further treatment stability.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's refusal unreasonable, emphasizing its duty to gather all relevant evidence, including Gladue information, for Indigenous NCR accused persons.

The court reiterated that Gladue principles apply to Board proceedings and require a distinct analytical approach.

The appeal was allowed, and the Board was ordered to ensure a Gladue Report is prepared before the appellant's next hearing.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault and assault with choking, appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge provided inadequate reasons for rejecting his main defence of fabrication and accepting the complainant's evidence.

The defence posited the complainant fabricated allegations to conceal a consensual encounter from her boyfriend, citing evidence like shared location data, friendly post-incident texts, and the complainant's shifting testimony on her boyfriend's potential reaction.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons insufficient, noting a failure to grapple with key defence evidence, mischaracterization of text messages, and an inadequate assessment of the complainant's credibility regarding motive to fabricate.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.

This is an appeal from conviction and sentence.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of his s. 11(b) Charter application, arguing the trial judge erred in characterizing a 60-day period as an exceptional COVID-19 delay without evidence and in double-counting a 7-day defence delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both arguments, affirming the trial judge's consideration of local circumstances for the COVID-19 delay and finding no double-counting.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal his 6-month custodial sentence, requesting a conditional sentence.

Leave was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed, as the Court found no error in principle or unfitness.

The appellant, D.M., appealed a five-year custodial sentence for sexual exploitation and sexual interference of his daughter.

The appeal was based on three grounds: the sentencing judge allegedly erred by treating lack of remorse as an aggravating factor, mischaracterized a forensic psychiatric report regarding insight, and imposed an unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors, her interpretation of the forensic report, or the fitness of the sentence, which was within the appropriate range for such offences.

The appellant, David Charizanis, appealed a 12-month custodial sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was entitled to conclude that the sentence was fit and appropriate, having considered all operative principles, including restraint, and appropriate weight to mitigating factors.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for six counts of sexual assault due to mental disorder, appealed an Ontario Review Board (ORB) disposition of conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued the ORB erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety, citing his stability under strict bail conditions and improved insight.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the ORB's finding that a foreseeable and substantial risk of serious harm remained, considering the nature of his illness, past non-compliance, and the recency of his improved insight, despite his recent stability.

The appellant, A.B., appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board that did not permit him to work unsupervised in the community.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board's decision, noting that the Board's conclusion was justified by the psychiatric evidence and the appellant's changed circumstances, including a subsequent criminal conviction while under a Board order.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCR), appealed an Ontario Review Board (ORB) disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ORB's finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety and affirmed the majority's decision for a detention order, rejecting the appellant's request for an absolute or conditional discharge.

However, the court amended the detention order to include specific directives for the hospital to explore culturally appropriate programs, housing, and care for the appellant, particularly in Owen Sound, in accordance with Gladue principles.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 54-storey non-residential building containing office, retail, and data centre uses.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the municipality's Official Plan, and representative of good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in principle, withholding its final order pending the fulfillment of conditions, including the securing of Section 37 community benefits.