Shannon Frances Darby

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the conviction appeals of William McDonald (second-degree murder) and Thomas Lako (manslaughter) arising from the 2012 shooting death of Jonathan Zak.

The court found that the trial judge erred in admitting a hearsay police statement from a deceased witness for the truth of its contents and in failing to adequately caution the jury regarding discreditable conduct evidence.

The court ordered new trials for both appellants.

This criminal retrial addressed the admissibility of evidence concerning an alleged sexual assault incident, where the accused had previously obtained a 'functional acquittal' on the mental element of sexual assault for that specific incident, though convicted on other factual bases within the same charge.

The defence invoked autrefois acquit and issue estoppel to bar the Crown from re-litigating the incident.

The court held that neither doctrine applied; autrefois acquit required a formal acquittal, which was absent, and issue estoppel was inapplicable because the matter was a retrial of the same charge, meaning no 'final determination' had been made on the issue, as per R. v. Cowan.

The accused appealed a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), arguing procedural unfairness and insufficient reasons from the trial judge.

The Crown conceded the trial judge's reasons were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the NCRMD finding, and ordered a new trial, emphasizing the critical importance of procedural fairness in NCRMD cases due to the significant deprivations of liberty involved.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault, appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that directed his transfer from Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

The ORB's decision was based on the recommendation of the appellant's treating psychiatrist, who believed CAMH's sexual behaviour clinic was necessary to address the appellant's hypersexuality and concerning behaviours.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the ORB's decision on a reasonableness standard, as established in R. v. Owen, and found that the ORB's analysis and conclusion were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for theft, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention order with community privileges, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Board found that an absolute discharge would pose a significant public safety threat due to likely medication non-compliance and substance abuse leading to decompensation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court rejected arguments that the Board failed to consider the appellant's improvements or misapprehended evidence regarding substance use, emphasizing that appellate review is limited to reasonableness and does not involve reweighing evidence.

Fresh evidence regarding recent decompensation reinforced the Board's conclusion.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the global sentence of 15 months' imprisonment for drug trafficking and breach of undertaking, arguing the sentencing judge erred in assessing addiction as a mitigating factor.

The Court of Appeal found no legal error, clarifying that the sentencing judge's finding was factual and that addiction was properly weighed against aggravating factors, including the commercial motive, repeat offending, and breach of release conditions.

The Court upheld the sentence, finding it within the appropriate range and that a conditional sentence was insufficient for denunciation and deterrence.

This criminal trial involved multiple allegations of sexual assault and sexual interference against A.R., a substitute teacher.

The court meticulously assessed the credibility and reliability of each child complainant's testimony, noting significant internal and external inconsistencies and pervasive evidence of collusion among the witnesses, particularly influenced by one central complainant.

The defence did not call evidence.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt for all complainants, concluding that the evidence was unreliable and insufficient to support convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, or even simple assault.

A.R. was acquitted of all charges.