Scott Latimer

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence affecting credibility findings regarding a key witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions that the witness had no motive to lie and that independent evidence confirmed his testimony were reasonably open to her.

The court also upheld the finding that the appellant lied about not knowing the witness.

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing that the eyewitness description varied from his appearance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge adequately explained why he discounted the discrepancies and reasonably relied on the remarkable coincidence that the appellant was found with the co-perpetrator minutes after the robbery wearing a shirt matching the eyewitness description.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving after being stopped at a border crossing by border services officers (BSOs).

The BSOs noticed signs of impairment and directed the appellant to exit his vehicle, at which point they made further observations of his insobriety and arrested him.

The appellant appealed, arguing that designated BSOs lack the authority to gather evidence of insobriety and that the direction to exit the vehicle constituted an illegal, compelled sobriety test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that designated BSOs possess the ancillary powers necessary to take reasonable steps to investigate suspected impaired driving, and that the observations made upon the appellant exiting the vehicle were not conscriptive evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding reasonable and probable grounds for his arrest and that his rights under ss. 10(a) and (b) of the Charter were violated.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the circumstances, including the fact that the appellant matched the description of a male who pointed a handgun, constituted reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

The Charter arguments were not pressed and were found to have no merit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for assault with a weapon.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by characterizing the incident as an attack on a stranger, when it actually occurred during a drug transaction.

This misapprehension constituted an error in principle, requiring a fresh assessment of the sentence.

The Court varied the sentence to two years, in addition to four months of pre-trial custody, noting the seriousness of the assault and the appellant's lengthy criminal record.

The appellant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and failing to stop for police.

The Crown and defence made a joint submission for a sentence of 10 months less time in custody.

The sentencing judge purported to accept the joint submission but refused to credit the appellant's 84 days of pre-sentence custody, effectively imposing a longer sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred by rejecting the joint submission without finding that it was contrary to the public interest or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced by 84 days.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in calculating pre-sentence custody credit.

The Crown conceded the trial judge failed to give credit for an 86-day period because he was unaware bail had been revoked.

The trial judge also erred by giving only one-for-one credit for another 30-day period based on a breach of recognizance charge that was later withdrawn.

The Court of Appeal rejected the Crown's argument that one-for-one credit should apply to the entire period to maintain the overall sentence.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced by 202 days.

The conviction appeal was abandoned.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on a charge of murder, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with community living privileges.

He sought a conditional discharge and travel privileges to India.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's ongoing threat to public safety, the risk of relapse, and concerns regarding medication compliance while travelling.

The appellant appealed his conviction for break and enter, arguing the trial judge erred in relying on the doctrine of recent possession without rejecting the complainant's vague description of the intruders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge gave no weight to the vague descriptions and was entitled to rely on recent possession.

The Crown appealed the 12-month sentence, arguing it was outside the range for home invasions and failed to consider psychological harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's approach given the offender's circumstances and the lack of submissions on psychological harm at trial.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention in a medium secure unit, seeking a transfer to a minimum secure unit or a hybrid order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's order was not unreasonable given the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the appellant remained a high risk to reoffend and had yet to undergo psychiatric testing.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to three years' imprisonment following a vicious assault on a defenceless victim.

On appeal, the appellant introduced fresh evidence demonstrating significant strides towards rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle by the trial judge but allowed the sentence appeal based on the fresh evidence, reducing the sentence to two years' imprisonment.

The conviction appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding the actus reus of the offence had been made out.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's analysis fully supported the finding of dangerous driving.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge erred in imposing a consecutive sentence and that there was an unjustified disparity between his sentence and that of his co-accused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge gave cogent reasons for the consecutive sentence.

The Court also held that the disparity was warranted due to the appellant's longer criminal record, the co-accused's guilty plea, and the co-accused's assistance to the Crown.