Susan E. Lang

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and detained for 24 years, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board refusing to grant him an absolute discharge under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal held that the ORB is not a court of competent jurisdiction to grant an absolute discharge as a Charter remedy because it lacks the structural competence and remedial jurisdiction.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the ORB's failure to impose conditions in its disposition to address the appellant's treatment impasse was unreasonable, and remitted the matter for a new hearing.

The appellant pleaded guilty on the fifth day of trial to possession of cocaine and ecstasy for the purpose of trafficking.

He was sentenced to 41 months' imprisonment, plus 7 months' credit for restrictive pre-sentence bail.

The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing it was unduly harsh and overlooked his rehabilitation and positive antecedents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit given the large quantity of drugs involved, which included over 769 grams of cocaine and 2000 ecstasy pills.

The youth appellants were convicted of armed robbery and related offences.

At trial, the judge admitted hearsay statements from a victim and a co-accused under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's reliability analysis for the hearsay statements.

However, the sentence appeals were allowed.

The trial judge erred by considering general deterrence, which is not a principle of youth sentencing.

Given the passage of time and fresh evidence of the appellants' successful rehabilitation, the court reduced their sentences to periods of open custody and community supervision.

The appellant bank transferred funds from a deceased customer's account to her son without verifying the will or notifying the daughter, who held a power of attorney.

The daughter successfully litigated the validity of the will and ownership of the funds in Kuwait courts.

She then sued the bank in Ontario and obtained summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the bank's appeal, holding that the bank was a privy in interest to the son and was bound by the Kuwait judgment through issue estoppel, preventing it from relitigating the ownership of the funds.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application to replace the Court Administrator of a condominium corporation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's analysis or conclusions and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $3,000 to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict awarding the respondents damages for malicious prosecution and awarding the appellant Wayne Scott $1 in damages for assault.

The dispute arose from altercations over a right of way between trailer park owners and cottagers.

The appellants argued the jury verdicts were unreasonable and challenged the trial judge's jury instructions.

The respondent Bettes cross-appealed the finding of assault against him and the dismissal of his malicious prosecution claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding that there was evidence to support the jury's findings, the jury instructions were proper, and the nominal damages award was open to the jury.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention.

The Board found that the appellant would stop his medication and abuse substances if given an absolute discharge, but failed to consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's failure to specifically inquire into the availability and propriety of a conditional discharge as the least onerous disposition was an error of law.

The Court also noted the Board improperly considered non-conviction charges in its risk assessment.

The disposition was quashed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving and other offences, as well as his 18-month sentence.

He had fled from police, run over an officer's leg, and resisted arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding his actions were intentional.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge overemphasized general deterrence and failed to adequately consider the appellant's youth, first-offender status, significant rehabilitation prospects, and aboriginal status.

The sentence was varied to three months of time served followed by a 12-month conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred in allowing a bank employee to testify to facts referred to in a 1994 letter and that the jury charge contained errors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary ruling based on past recollection recorded or refreshing memory.

Furthermore, the hearsay concerns were moot because defence counsel had agreed to admit the evidence for its truth for tactical reasons.

The court also found the jury charge to be balanced and fair.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the committal, finding that the Authority to Proceed met statutory requirements and a prima facie case was established.

The Court also dismissed the judicial review application, concluding that the Minister reasonably considered the appellant's concerns regarding potential sexual assault in Texas prisons, delay, and his personal circumstances in Canada.

The young person appealed a decision upholding a committal order for trial on a charge of first degree murder.

The appellant argued there was no evidence of planning and deliberation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that a reasonable inference of planning and deliberation could be drawn from the circumstantial evidence, including the appellant carrying a large knife, making statements about wanting to do something stupid, and his actions before and after the stabbing.

The appellant appealed his conviction related to a marijuana grow operation.

He argued that his presence in the house for six hours did not prove knowledge or control of the drugs, suggesting alternative inferences such as watching television or sleeping.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge reasonably concluded the appellant's guilt was the only reasonable inference given his sole possession of the house, possession of a key, and the substantial nature of the operation.

The Crown appealed a 60-day sentence imposed on the respondent for a third domestic assault against his same-sex partner.

The assault occurred less than 48 hours after the respondent's release from jail for a previous assault on the same victim, and in breach of release conditions.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by overemphasizing compassion and the victim's professional background as a psychiatrist, while giving insufficient weight to deterrence and denunciation.

The appeal was allowed and a sentence of 12 months was substituted.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and forcible confinement involving a 13-year-old complainant.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding the theory of the defence, consent, mistake of age, and reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge adequately set out the defence's theory, properly instructed the jury on the withdrawal of consent and the objective element of the mistake of age defence, and correctly applied the burden of proof.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference against his stepson, as well as his designation as a dangerous offender.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in her findings of guilt and in rejecting expert psychiatric evidence that suggested his risk could be managed in the community under a long-term offender designation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdicts reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly assessed the risk management evidence and was entitled to conclude that the community supervision plan, including the Circles of Support and Accountability program, lacked the necessary resources to safely manage the appellant's risk.

The appellant, a lawyer who had power of attorney over a deceased client's affairs, was convicted of theft over $1,000 for failing to notify an insurance company of the client's death and continuing to collect annuity payments.

He appealed the conviction and the dismissal of his pre-trial motion for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter for unreasonable delay.

The Court of Appeal found that while the application judge erred in attributing certain periods of delay, the total institutional and Crown delay of ten months fell within acceptable limits.

The court also found sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant had the requisite mens rea.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for certiorari regarding his committal for trial on charges of criminal negligence causing death.

The charges arose from a tractor-trailer collision that resulted in three fatalities.

The appellant argued there was insufficient evidence of wanton and reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others to justify the committal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was some evidence, including the appellant's knowledge of the trailer's poor condition and tendency to lean, to meet the low threshold for committal.

The appellant appealed his convictions and total sentence of six years' imprisonment for the physical and sexual abuse of his children.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the sexual abuse allegations, improperly assessed videotaped statements, and rendered an unreasonable verdict on the assault charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and her assessment of the videotaped statements was appropriate.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in refusing credit for time spent on strict bail conditions, though a technical correction was made to the counts on which the sentence was imposed.

The appellant, who had a substantial criminal record including a previous ten-year sentence for bank robberies, appealed his effective sentence of thirteen years imprisonment for seven bank robberies and one attempted bank robbery.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence fit, noting the gravity of the offences and the expert evidence indicating a risk of re-offending.

The court held that the sentence did not offend the principles of proportionality and totality, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his effective eight-year sentence for firearms offences, arguing it failed to reflect his guilty plea and rehabilitative potential, and represented too large an increase from his previous sentences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the extreme seriousness of attending a meeting to purchase firearms while armed with a loaded handgun containing hollow-point bullets.

The court noted the appellant was subject to three firearms prohibitions at the time and had a significant related criminal record, concluding the sentence was fit and no error in principle occurred.