Sean Horgan

The court sentenced Calvin Au, a Toronto Police Service officer, for assaulting Chadd Facey after a failed transaction involving a fake watch.

The court found Au used excessive force in taking Facey to the ground, though not in his capacity as a police officer.

The sentence imposed was a suspended sentence and 12 months probation, with ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The decision discusses the aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact on the victim’s family and community, and the heightened standards for police officers convicted of assault.

The accused, Daniel Blais, was charged with second degree murder in the death of Cody Bulmer but pled guilty to manslaughter.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a sentencing range of five to eight years.

The court found the offence to be an "aggravated" manslaughter, accepting the Crown's position and imposing an eight-year sentence, less credit for pre-sentence custody and institutional lockdown (Duncan credit).

The decision reviews the facts, the impact on the victim's family, the offender's background, and relevant case law, and discusses aggravating and mitigating factors.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and overcoming resistance by choking.

He appealed both the convictions and the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's credibility and the minor inconsistencies in her evidence was entitled to deference.

The court also affirmed that corroboration is not a requirement for conviction in such cases.

The sentence appeal was not pursued.

Mikhail Vasiliev pleaded guilty to multiple counts of extortion, unauthorized use of a computer to commit mischief to data (related to LockBit ransomware attacks), and possession of prohibited firearms.

He deployed ransomware against three Canadian companies, causing significant financial losses and operational disruptions, totaling approximately $900,000 in damages and remediation costs.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the planned and deliberate nature of the cybercrimes, the motivation of personal gain, the substantial harm to victims, and the possession of loaded firearms.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, early resolution efforts, consent to extradition to the U.S. for related charges, anticipated restitution, and being a first offender.

The judge imposed a global sentence of four years and six months imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for cybercrime.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown brought an application to admit a compilation of surveillance video recordings.

The compilation combined footage from the scene of the shooting and a subsequent location, and included enhancements such as spotlights and magnifiers.

The defence objected, arguing the compilation and enhancements could unduly influence the jury.

The court held that the compilation and spotlight enhancements were admissible, as they were substantially accurate and assisted the trier of fact without causing prejudice.

The use of a magnifier on the accused's clothing was excluded pending further evidence on whether it altered the image.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of aggravated assault and firearms offences, arguing the trial judge misapprehended surveillance video evidence, failed to assess evidence holistically, and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of the circumstantial evidence, and that the reasons were sufficient.

The court reiterated that Crown appeals from acquittals are limited to questions of law alone and cannot challenge the reasonableness of the verdict.

The appellant, Mathew Hayes, appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, raising nine grounds of appeal.

These grounds included allegations of police trickery in obtaining his statement, errors in denying third-party suspect applications, failure to disclose a Crimestoppers tip, denial of a directed verdict of acquittal, and misdirections in jury instructions regarding circumstantial evidence and the proper use of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding the conviction, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's decisions or jury instructions.

The applicant, Wendel McLean, sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing unreasonable post-conviction delay in the context of a dangerous offender application.

McLean was convicted of robbery with a firearm and break and enter, and the Crown initiated dangerous offender proceedings.

McLean argued that the 20-month delay between conviction and the scheduled dangerous offender hearing exceeded the 5-month presumptive ceiling for post-conviction delay set by R. v. Charley, after deducting delays attributable to him and the s. 752.1 assessment application.

The Crown contended that the entire dangerous offender proceeding is an exceptional circumstance to be deducted and that it acted reasonably.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the dangerous offender application as a whole is an exceptional circumstance, and the Crown had mitigated any resulting delay, thus no delay exceeding the presumptive ceiling was found.

Sharon Atkinson, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for arson, appealed the Ontario Review Board's conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge or a new hearing.

The appellant, diagnosed with Prader-Willi syndrome, intellectual disability, and personality disorder, argued the Board erred in finding her a significant threat to public safety and in assessing the sufficiency of civil mechanisms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's finding that the appellant remained a significant threat due to her persistent behavioural issues, high risk of recidivism, and lack of a viable plan for an absolute discharge, concluding that civil mechanisms would be inadequate to manage the risk.

Appeal from a conviction for possession of child pornography.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in reviewing the Information to Obtain (ITO) that formed the basis for the search warrant used to seize the DVD containing child pornography.

The appellant argued that information excised from the ITO had the potential to taint the issuing justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the excisions were made consistently with established principles and that sufficient reasonable grounds remained to support the issuance of the warrant.

The appeal was dismissed.

An NCR accused appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with discretionary community living privileges.

The appellant argued he posed no significant risk to public safety, citing 15 years without violent behaviour, and sought an absolute discharge or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board properly considered all relevant factors under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and reasonably concluded the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety based on his mental illness, lack of insight, substance abuse issues, and criminal history.

The court emphasized that absence of violent behaviour does not eliminate risk of serious psychological harm, and that Part XX.1 is designed to protect public safety before violence occurs.

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, impaired driving causing death, impaired driving causing bodily harm, blood alcohol over legal limit causing accident resulting in death, and blood alcohol over legal limit causing accident resulting in bodily harm.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to consider relevant evidence.

The primary defence theory was that the Crown failed to prove the appellant was driving the van, suggesting the appellant and a passenger could have switched positions.

The appellate court found no misapprehension of evidence and no failure to consider relevant evidence, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction on two counts of impaired operation of a vessel causing bodily harm arising from a boating accident.

The appellant had consumed alcohol throughout the day and evening before taking control of a boat in unfamiliar waters at dusk, resulting in a collision with an island that ejected two passengers.

The trial judge convicted based on the totality of circumstances, including the appellant's conduct, alcohol consumption, and expert evidence regarding blood alcohol concentration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding it was reasonable and supported by evidence.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal sentence and raised a Charter argument regarding the breathalyzer demand that had not been raised at trial, which the court declined to hear.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and the victim surcharge order was quashed, but the sentence itself was upheld as within the normal range for the offence.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder, sought a reduction in his parole ineligibility period under the "faint hope" clause (s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code).

The screening judge applied the less stringent "reasonable prospect of success" test from the 1997 amendments, as the murder occurred in 2003.

Despite some positive institutional conduct, the applicant's abysmal overall conduct, lack of genuine remorse and accountability, and persistent moderate risk for violent recidivism led the court to conclude he failed to meet the test.

The application was dismissed, but a further application was permitted after six years.

The appellant appealed her conviction for fraud exceeding $5,000 arising from misrepresentations related to Ontario Works social benefits.

The appellant initially qualified for benefits as a sole-support parent and was obligated to report changes in income, assets, or living circumstances.

The Crown alleged the appellant failed to disclose a change of residence and a change in her benefit unit status.

The trial judge convicted the appellant without making clear findings on whether she was co-habiting with Mr. Weedmark and misapprehended evidence regarding the tenancy agreement.

The Court of Appeal found these errors were material to the verdict and allowed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement.

The appeal was dismissed as it constituted an attempt to retry the case and revisit the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility.

The trial judge had provided thorough reasons explaining the rejection of the appellant's version of events and the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

No appealable issue was raised.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault offences against his nine-year-old daughter.

The trial judge found the victim's evidence credible and reliable despite inconsistencies and contradictions, and rejected the appellant's denials and the defence theory that the victim had fabricated the allegations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge's reasons adequate and admitting of appellate review, with no error in her analysis of the evidence.

The verdicts were not unreasonable.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge gave inadequate consideration to his Aboriginal background.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding the trial judge gave proper and meaningful consideration to the Gladue Report and relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence.

The sentence of three and one-half years was fit given the age of the victim, seriousness of the abuse, and egregious breach of trust.

The accused, M.O., was charged with aggravated assault and firearms offences.

He brought a motion on a voir dire seeking to exclude fingerprint evidence and a derivative statement, arguing that the police conducted an unreasonable search in breach of his Section 8 Charter rights.

The police accessed his fingerprints, taken six years prior when he was a young offender for a charge that was later withdrawn, outside the access period specified in the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

The court found that the police unlawfully accessed the records, constituting an unreasonable search.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court determined that the systemic institutional indifference to YCJA provisions and the high expectation of privacy for young offender records outweighed the societal interest in adjudicating the serious offence on its merits.

Consequently, the fingerprint evidence and the derivative statement were excluded.

The accused applied for a second bail review after a prior review had been dismissed by another Superior Court judge.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to review the original justice of the peace’s decision or only the earlier review decision, concluding that under s. 520(8) of the Criminal Code and the authority of Saracino, the review was limited to assessing the earlier judge’s decision.

The applicant argued there had been a material change in circumstances and that the earlier judge misapplied the test from St‑Cloud in light of subsequent appellate authority.

The court found that the alleged new evidence, including statements by a co‑accused during sentencing, was not credible or capable of affecting the bail determination and therefore did not constitute a material change.

The court further held that the prior reviewing judge made no material error in principle and that detention on primary and secondary grounds remained justified.

The accused pleaded guilty to a historical count of indecent assault against a child occurring between 1976 and 1982 in circumstances involving a position of trust.

The offences involved repeated sexual abuse of a very young child over several years and caused lasting psychological harm.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 18 to 24 months, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children.

The court found that although incarceration would normally be required, the accused’s advanced age and severe medical conditions created a substantial risk that imprisonment would endanger his life.

A conditional sentence with strict house arrest and probation was imposed to balance denunciation with compassion for the offender’s medical circumstances.