Sean Christopher Doyle

The accused was sentenced following conviction for robbery and being masked with intent to commit robbery arising from a home invasion.

The offenders entered an occupied dwelling at night while masked and armed with knives, confronted the occupant in his bedroom, and stole multiple valuables.

The court held the offence constituted a home invasion and emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing objectives.

While the offender’s youth, difficult upbringing, employment history, and family support were mitigating factors, his significant prior record and commission of the offence while under community supervision were aggravating factors.

A penitentiary sentence of four years was imposed, less credit for pre‑sentence custody.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder, arson, and rendering an indignity to a body after he and two accomplices tortured the victim and burned down the house to conceal the crime.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in dismissing an application for the production of a Crown witness's third-party psychological records, and in his jury instructions regarding accomplice evidence (Vetrovec warning) and fabricated statements.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred at the first stage of the third-party records analysis, production would not have been ordered at the second stage.

The court also found the jury instructions were adequate and dismissed the appeal.

The accused was charged with refusing to comply with an approved screening device (ASD) demand made by a peace officer pursuant to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused refused to provide a breath sample at the roadside following a motor vehicle collision.

The accused raised two defences: first, that his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter was violated; and second, that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that he had operated the motor vehicle within the preceding three hours.

The court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the accused's proximity to the vehicle and conflicting statements from his wife.

The court also found that the demand was made promptly and that the refusal occurred within the "forthwith" timeframe, meaning the accused's Charter rights were not engaged.

The accused was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving, exceeding 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, and resisting arrest following a motor vehicle stop on June 5, 2014.

The Crown presented evidence of erratic driving, physical signs of impairment, breath test results of 180 mg/100 ml, and expert toxicology evidence.

The defence raised multiple Charter arguments and challenged the sufficiency of evidence.

The court found the defendant guilty of impaired driving but acquitted him of resisting arrest due to language barriers and lack of clarity regarding directions.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of excess blood alcohol where the trial judge excluded breathalyzer readings after finding a breach of the accused’s s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The summary conviction appeal court held that the trial judge’s reasons for excluding the evidence were inadequate and prevented meaningful appellate review.

The trial judge also erred in law by failing to apply the tripartite framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter established in Grant.

While the finding of a s. 10(b) breach was open on the evidence, the exclusion analysis was legally deficient.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

Following the close of the Crown’s case in a jury trial, the accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference with a 15‑year‑old complainant after engaging in sexual intercourse with her on at least two occasions while both were residing in a homeless shelter.

The court considered the statutory framework under s. 151 of the Criminal Code and determined that the applicable mandatory minimum was 45 days because the precise date of the offence relative to the legislative increase could not be established.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence in offences involving sexual activity with children, the court weighed aggravating factors including the complainant’s vulnerability, the accused’s age disparity, and repeated sexual intercourse.

Mitigating factors included the accused’s lack of criminal record, expressions of remorse, mental health challenges, and rehabilitative prospects.

A custodial sentence of 15 months followed by two years’ probation and several ancillary orders was imposed.

The defendant was found sleeping in his parked car at a fast food restaurant in Mississauga with a blood alcohol concentration of 180 mg/100ml.

He was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with blood alcohol over the legal limit.

The Crown and defence agreed that the defendant was arbitrarily detained for approximately 4.5 to 7 hours after the investigation was complete.

The court found the defendant was in care or control of the vehicle based on the statutory presumption under section 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, which the defendant failed to rebut.

The court also found a breach of the defendant's section 9 Charter rights regarding arbitrary detention but declined to grant a stay of proceedings, instead imposing a reduced sentence as the appropriate remedy.

The accused was charged with robbery and being masked with intent to commit robbery following a home invasion by three masked men.

The Crown's primary evidence was the testimony of the accused's former girlfriend, who stated he confessed to the crime hours after it occurred.

The court found the girlfriend's testimony credible and corroborated by circumstantial evidence, including stolen property found at a co-perpetrator's residence and a prior minor altercation with the victim's friend.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The appellants in a property assessment appeal brought a motion for an order permitting alternative service of a motion for production of third-party confidential information.

The appellants sought to serve the motion on non-party property owners by registered mail directed to the general manager of the hotel and to the owners' representatives if they had outstanding appeals.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion on consent, finding it to be the most just, expeditious, and least expensive method of advancing the production motion.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to establish a schedule for the exchange of pleadings and to set a date for a subsequent pre-hearing teleconference regarding property assessment appeals by Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. across multiple municipalities.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for excess blood alcohol, arguing that the trial judge erred in upholding the arresting officer’s grounds, rejecting a right-to-counsel breach, and finding the breath tests were taken as soon as practicable.

The court held that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the driving conduct and multiple indicia of impairment, notwithstanding some inconsistencies with later video evidence.

The court further held that the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult duty counsel in private and adduced no evidence that the video presence impaired that consultation.

Finally, the court found the breath samples, taken within 65 and 88 minutes of driving, were obtained as soon as practicable in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed and the stay of the driving prohibition was vacated.

The applicant, who was self-represented, sought an interim stay of his sentence orders (including a fine, probation, and a DNA order) pending his summary conviction appeal for assault with a weapon.

The court noted deficiencies in the application record and that the applicant had not demonstrated an arguable appeal or undue hardship.

The court granted an adjournment to allow the applicant to acquire materials and potentially retain counsel, but denied the request for an interim stay.

The appellant appealed convictions arising from historical sexual offences against a teenage complainant who was a close family friend.

He argued that the mixed verdicts were inconsistent and that the jury charge was deficient on count-by-count reasoning, witness credibility, delay in disclosure, corroboration, and limiting use of bad character evidence.

The court held that the acquittals and conviction were rationally reconcilable on the evidence and that the jury instructions, read functionally and as a whole, adequately conveyed the governing principles.

Although a limiting instruction on alleged mistreatment of children would have been preferable, its absence caused no reversible error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed their convictions arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The jury convicted the appellant driver of dangerous driving causing death but acquitted him of dangerous driving causing bodily harm arising from the same incident.

The Court of Appeal found the verdicts irreconcilably inconsistent, as both charges relied on the same evidence regarding the identity of the driver and the nature of the driving.

The conviction for dangerous driving causing death was quashed and an acquittal entered due to issue estoppel.

The related convictions for obstructing police and being an accessory after the fact were also quashed, with a new trial ordered for the obstruction charges.

The appellant appealed convictions arising from a home invasion robbery in which the sole live issue at trial was identity.

The Court of Appeal held that the jury charge on identification evidence was materially deficient because it failed to caution adequately about the limited value of in-dock identification, the risk of contamination of the photo-lineup identification, the weak connection between witness confidence and accuracy, and the exculpatory significance of a discrepancy about eye colour.

Given that the Crown’s case rested entirely on eyewitness identification that was far from overwhelming, the cumulative effect of the charge errors undermined trial fairness.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed sentence after the trial judge imposed a term exceeding the statutory maximum for unlawful possession of a firearm under s. 91 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded the error.

The court held that, applying the proper sentencing range and taking account of fresh evidence of the appellant's institutional progress, a sentence of 45 months was appropriate before credit for pre-trial custody.

Applying enhanced credit under Summers, the court reduced the sentence to 17 months while maintaining the ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit (driving over 80) and while impaired by alcohol.

The Crown relied on breath test results from an Intoxilyzer 8000C showing readings of 187 and 175 mg of alcohol per 100 mL of blood.

The defence brought applications seeking COBRA data (downloadable data from the breath testing instrument) in electronic format and seeking a view of the breath room at Traffic Services.

The court allowed in part the COBRA data application, ordering disclosure of all COBRA data generated by the specific instrument from the quality assurance checks through the subject tests in native raw text file format.

The court dismissed the view application, finding insufficient evidentiary foundation and no demonstrated advantage to taking a view over two years after the fact.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence for setting fire to her rented home.

She argued the trial judge erred in admitting her confession to police and misapprehended evidence regarding the fire.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the confession voluntary and no material misapprehension of evidence under the Morrissey standard.

The sentence appeal was allowed only to vary the $91,865 restitution order from a term of probation to a free-standing order under s. 738 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed his convictions for invitation to sexual touching and sexual assault.

The trial judge had relied on what he characterized as admissions by the appellant to reinforce the complainant's credibility.

The Crown conceded on appeal that the trial judge misapprehended the appellant's evidence, as the appellant had not made those admissions.

The Court of Appeal held that this error vitiated the findings of guilt, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of discreditable conduct, misdirected the jury on post-offence conduct, and misdirected the jury on the elements of first degree murder, specifically regarding unlawful confinement and sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.