Susan Magotiaux

The appellant pled guilty to credit card offences and unlawfully being in Canada.

The trial judge rejected a joint submission for a 7-month global sentence and imposed an 18-month sentence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by failing to provide adequate reasons for the significant increase.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding the 7-month joint submission inadequate but the 18-month sentence too high, and imposed a global sentence of 9 months net of pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for sexually assaulting the two young daughters of his long-term partner.

He argued the trial judge improperly pooled credibility assessments and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed credibility and was entitled to consider the totality of the appellant's evidence under the W.D. framework.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the six-year total sentence fell within the established range for such offences.

The appellant appealed a finding that he breached his conditional sentences.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence concerning other employment undertaken by the appellant, which was central to the trial judge's reasoning.

The appeal was allowed, and on agreement of counsel, the remaining 72 days of the conditional sentence were reinstated under the same conditions and terms.

Sentence appeal from a global penitentiary term imposed after guilty pleas to multiple historic and more recent sexual offences against three child complainants, together with child pornography and breach offences.

The court held that a sentencing judge may reject a joint submission only where the proposed sentence is contrary to the public interest and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, but found the judge erred in applying that standard by failing to give sufficient weight to the guilty plea, remorse, and the avoidance of trial for the complainants.

The court also held that prior appellate authority on sentencing ranges for repeated abuse of children in a position of trust did not mandate a sentence above ten years regardless of a guilty plea.

The seven-year floor of the joint submission was too low, but the ten-year ceiling, though lenient, was not so low as to require rejection.

Appeal allowed and global sentence reduced to ten years less credit for pre-trial custody.

The appellant pleaded guilty to eighteen offences, including ten for fraud under $5,000, and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment plus 161 days of pre-trial custody.

She appealed the custodial portion of her sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in granting only 1:1 credit for pre-trial custody without providing an ascertainable rationale.

The Court of Appeal found this to be an error in principle, allowed the appeal, and reduced the sentence to time served based on a 2:1 credit for pre-trial custody.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on weapons charges after the trial judge excluded evidence of a loaded sawed-off shotgun found in the trunk of a car.

The accused and three passengers were arrested after police found knives and pellet guns on them and in the car's interior.

The trial judge ruled the trunk search violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the accused had a minimal privacy interest in the trunk and the search was a lawful search incident to arrest given the discovery of multiple weapons.

A new trial was ordered on all counts.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred in rejecting his evidence regarding alleged assaults by a police officer and alleged inducements to provide a statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge did not reverse the burden of proof and reasonably concluded that the appellant's version of events was improbable based on the videotape statement and testimony.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that no inducements were made.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on an arson charge and a costs order made against the Crown for late disclosure of an expert report.

During the trial, the Crown's primary fire investigator became seriously ill and could not complete his cross-examination.

The trial judge excluded his evidence in its entirety, as well as the evidence of a second expert whose report was disclosed late.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by prematurely excluding the evidence before the end of the trial and failing to consider affording the incomplete evidence less weight.

The Court also vacated the costs order, finding the Crown's late disclosure was not flagrant or unjustified.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for pushing the complainant down the stairs, arguing the trial judge erred by determining credibility based solely on demeanour and failing to properly apply the W.(D.) framework.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Summary Conviction Appeal Judge that the trial judge considered all the evidence, recognized inconsistencies, and properly concluded the defence evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and touching for a sexual purpose involving a minor complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting the complainant's videotaped statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code and misapplied the burden of proof regarding reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory preconditions for the videotaped statement were met and conceded at trial, and that the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof when assessing the evidence.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly stated the operative legal principles and carefully applied them to the evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for two robberies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's instruction that evidence on each count could be considered on the other counts on the issue of identity due to striking similarity.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed.

The trial judge had imposed a sentence of seven years in addition to three years of pre-trial custody.

Given the appellant's background and that this was his first jail term, the sentence was found to be manifestly excessive.

The sentence was reduced to five years concurrent on each count.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law, holding that the trial judge was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence regarding how the appellant's vehicle contacted him.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on driving charges.

At arraignment, the Crown sought to amend the information to correct the make and model of the accused's vehicle.

The defence refused to consent, and the trial judge refused the amendment, citing prejudice.

The Crown offered no evidence, resulting in an acquittal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the trial judge erred in finding prejudice, she correctly refused the amendment because a court has no power under s. 601 of the Criminal Code to amend an information to conform to evidence before any evidence has been heard.

The Crown appealed an acquittal for sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge and summary conviction appeal judge made serious errors of law regarding the defence of mistaken belief in consent within a marriage.

However, the appeal from the acquittal was dismissed because the trial judge had found the accused credible, which required an acquittal under the rule in W.(D.).

The Court allowed the Crown's appeal regarding costs, setting aside the costs order against the Crown as there was no evidentiary basis for a finding of misconduct.

The appellant appealed his conviction for murder and his sentence, which included a 14-year period of parole ineligibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's instructions on aiding and abetting, recent possession, or other evidentiary issues.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed.

The Court found the trial judge erred in principle by placing undue emphasis on the appellant's minor criminal record when setting the parole ineligibility period.

The period of parole ineligibility was reduced from 14 years to 12 years.

The Crown appealed the global sentence of ten years (less four years pre-trial custody) imposed on the respondent for aggravated sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm against his six-year-old stepdaughter, and aggravated assault against his five-week-old biological son.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence manifestly inadequate, noting the trial judge over-emphasized the principle of totality and failed to adequately reflect the gravity of the offences, deterrence, denunciation, and the need to separate the respondent from society.

The global sentence was increased to sixteen years (less four years pre-trial custody).

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for uttering threats and possessing a concealed weapon inside a correctional facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was not excessive given the devastating impact on the correctional worker, the need to protect correctional workers, and the appellant's serious criminal record involving violence against police officers.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for sex and drug offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that although the sentencing judge and trial counsel were misinformed about the length of a prior sentence, the sentencing judge properly anchored the sentence in a careful assessment of the totality principle.

The sentence imposed was deemed appropriate given the unique and difficult circumstances of the offence.

The appellant, a young person, was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, and possession of a weapon following an attack at a bus station.

The sole issue at trial was identification.

The appellant appealed the convictions, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found that the pre-trial identification procedures were flawed and prejudicial, and the eyewitness descriptions of the assailant did not match the appellant's physical characteristics.

The Court concluded the identification evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts, allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and entered acquittals.