Scott Latimer

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault following a jury trial.

On appeal, the court found that the Crown engaged in improper conduct during cross-examination and closing address, including eroding the appellant's right to silence by suggesting he should have provided information to police earlier, and mischaracterizing forensic evidence.

The trial judge failed to provide correcting jury instructions to address these issues.

The court found that the cumulative effect of these problems resulted in an unfair trial and a miscarriage of justice.

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

The appellant appealed his convictions for theft, robbery, uttering threats, breach of recognizance, and choking to overcome resistance, as well as seeking leave to appeal his sentence of 30 months imprisonment less two months pre-trial custody credit.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty based on eyewitness testimony and the complainant's evidence regarding an altercation in which the appellant kicked and punched the complainant, demanded his wallet, and threatened to "rip his throat out." The appellant's self-defence claim was rejected.

The Court of Appeal upheld all convictions and the sentence, finding no palpable or overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings or legal analysis.

The appellant was convicted of child abduction contrary to section 282 of the Criminal Code after taking her seven-year-old daughter to China in December 2010 without the knowledge or consent of the child's father and refusing to disclose the child's whereabouts upon return to Canada.

The trial judge imposed a seven-year sentence.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence, raising 14 grounds of appeal including allegations of illegality, perjury, and judicial misconduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial was conducted fairly and the evidence overwhelmingly established guilt.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part regarding pre-sentence custody credit, which was recalculated at a 1.5:1 ratio rather than 1:1, resulting in a reduction of the sentence by 14 months.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 27, 2016.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the Board should have made further inquiries regarding the cause of the appellant's psychosis (whether from liver disease or bipolar disorder), and second, that the Board erred in rejecting conditions regarding community access and an approved person.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds, finding no error in the Board's acceptance of the joint position that the appellant remained a significant risk to public safety and no error in the Board's decision to impose more limited community access conditions at that time.

The accused was charged with luring a child by means of computer contrary to section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded by indictment, triggering a mandatory minimum sentence of one year imprisonment.

The court conducted a Charter challenge to the constitutionality of subsections (3) and (4) of section 172.1, finding subsection (3) unconstitutional but subsection (4) constitutionally valid.

The accused was convicted based on his failure to take reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the online interlocutor, who was actually an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old.

The court then addressed the accused's Charter challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence under section 12 of the Charter, finding it grossly disproportionate to the circumstances of the offence and the offender's personal characteristics.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault against his former domestic partner.

This was the second assault conviction involving the same victim, with a prior conviction in 2007.

The court imposed a sentence of 22 days imprisonment on an intermittent basis, with credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by 24 months probation with conditions including no contact with the victim, a 500-metre exclusion zone, weapons prohibition, and mandatory participation in alcohol assessment and counselling programs.

The court rejected both a suspended sentence and a conditional sentence, finding that specific deterrence and denunciation of domestic violence required a custodial sentence.

The accused was charged with luring a child by means of a computer contrary to section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The accused posted a personal advertisement on Craigslist seeking a "daddy/daughter" role-play partner and engaged in sexual communications with a person he believed to be a 14-year-old girl named Mia.

The person was actually an adult police officer conducting an undercover investigation.

The accused claimed he believed he was communicating with an adult engaged in consensual role-play.

The court found the accused guilty, determining that while there was a reasonable doubt as to his subjective belief regarding the age of the person, he failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the person with whom he was communicating.

The applicant was charged with luring a child by means of a computer contrary to section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of the police obtaining his cell phone subscriber information from a telecommunications provider without a warrant.

The applicant argued that the disclosure of cell phone subscriber information was analogous to internet subscriber information and should require judicial authorization under the principles established in R v. Spencer.

The court rejected this argument, finding that cell phone subscriber information does not attract the same reasonable expectation of privacy as internet subscriber information, and therefore no breach of section 8 Charter rights occurred.

The applicant was charged with luring a child by means of a computer contrary to section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant brought a Charter application challenging the constitutionality of the combined operation of subsections 172.1(3) and 172.1(4).

Subsection (3) creates a presumption that a representation of being underage constitutes proof of the accused's belief in that age, rebuttable only by evidence to the contrary.

Subsection (4) provides that honest belief in legal age is not a defence unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the person's age.

The applicant argued these provisions violated section 7 (fundamental justice) and section 11(d) (presumption of innocence) of the Charter.

The court found the presumption in subsection (3) unconstitutional as applied in concert with subsection (4), as it could compel conviction despite reasonable doubt about the accused's belief.

The applicant sought judicial interim release while charged with accessory after the fact to murder.

The Crown conceded that detention was not justified on the primary or secondary grounds but argued for detention on the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The court assessed the strength of the Crown’s case, the gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the alleged conduct, and the potential sentence.

While the underlying murder was serious, the applicant’s alleged role was limited and he eventually assisted police in locating the body.

Considering the proposed release plan with multiple sureties and the lengthy pre-trial custody already served, the court held that detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence and ordered release with strict conditions.

The appellant was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle after driving while exhausted, striking a median, and running red lights.

He appealed, arguing the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, failed to explain conflicting evidence, and improperly relied on a police statement not in evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusory findings and failure to explain the mens rea analysis precluded effective appellate review.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.