Étienne Lacombe

The appellant pleaded guilty to numerous offences including break and enter, robbery, dangerous driving, and assault causing bodily harm, and received a global sentence of five years' incarceration pursuant to a joint submission.

On appeal, the appellant challenged only the lifetime driving prohibition imposed for the single count of dangerous driving, which the Crown conceded was not available under the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal allowed the sentence appeal in part, reducing the driving prohibition from life to the maximum available period of ten years and nine months, but declined the appellant's request for a work-related carve-out from the prohibition.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The appellant, a dangerous offender with an extensive history of child sexual offences, appealed his sentence of 20 months imposed for breaching a long-term supervision order and prohibition orders under section 161 of the Criminal Code.

The breach occurred when he attended a religious service in a church in the presence of numerous children, merely 30 days after being released to a community correctional centre.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) entitlement to sentence credit for the period between suspension of his long-term supervision order and the laying of charges; (2) the trial judge's allocation of pre-sentence credit at a ratio of 1:1.3 instead of 1:1.5 and the denial of a Duncan credit; and (3) that the sentence was imposed to ensure federal detention for treatment purposes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the sentence fit and imposed without error.

The appellant appealed a 9-year global sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that he did not receive adequate credit for presentence custody given the hardship endured.

Although the trial judge accepted the appellant's account of hardship and granted 3:1 credit, duty counsel submitted that the trial judge may have misapprehended the appellant's primary submission for a time-served sentence.

The appellate court found no error warranting interference, noting that the trial judge provided significant credit for hardship and properly rejected the time-served submission based on the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's degree of responsibility.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to three years imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on two grounds: (1) that the trial judge reversed the burden of proof by requiring the appellant to prove his innocence rather than requiring the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) that the trial judge erred in failing to resolve significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) framework, correctly assessed credibility, and was not required to address every minor contradiction raised by the defence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference and breach of probation, as well as his sentence of 30 months in custody less 7 months credit for presentence custody, followed by 18 months' probation.

The appellant sought leave to appeal sentence on the basis that the trial judge erred in failing to impose a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle by the sentencing judge and dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that the circumstances did not warrant a conditional sentence and that the sentence fell within the applicable range.

The appellant appealed her sentence of 11 months in custody followed by two years' probation for fraud over $5,000, forgery, and impersonation to gain advantage.

The appellant had fraudulently represented herself as a registered practical nurse at five care homes over 14 months, administered medication to residents, and received remuneration for work she was not qualified to perform.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding that the sentencing judge properly considered aggravating and mitigating factors, that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the extended period of fraudulent conduct, and that the custodial sentence was well within the appropriate range for such serious offences.

The applicant sought appointment of counsel pursuant to s. 684 of the Criminal Code to represent him on appeal of a lifetime weapons prohibition imposed following his guilty plea to possessing ammunition while subject to a s. 110 prohibition order and possessing explosive substances.

The applicant advanced two grounds of appeal: first, that the Crown failed to provide notice of the lifetime ban as an enhanced penalty prior to his guilty plea, contrary to s. 727(1); and second, that his prior s. 110 prohibition did not constitute a prior conviction sufficient to trigger the mandatory lifetime prohibition under s. 109(3).

The Crown conceded the applicant lacked financial means but opposed the application on grounds that the appeal was not legally complex.

The court granted the application, finding the issues were arguable and involved questions of mixed fact and law beyond the applicant's capacity to advance without counsel.

The appellant, Keldon Halstead, abandoned his appeal from convictions entered by Justice Shaun S. Nakatsuru of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario, constituted by Fairburn A.C.J.O., Trotter J.A., and Harvison Young J.A., noted the abandonment at Mr. Halstead’s request and dismissed the appeal.

The decision is subject to a publication ban on the identity of a witness under section 486.31(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, Tyson Peti, appealed the sentence imposed after pleading guilty to assault with a weapon, mischief, and failing to comply with an undertaking.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge’s decision to impose the Crown’s proposed sentence of 18 months, despite the judge’s reservations about its leniency.

The Court recognized the appellant’s rehabilitative efforts but concluded the sentence was fit given the seriousness of the offence and the appellant’s criminal record.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Ashton Turnquest, appealed a global four-year sentence, specifically challenging the three-year probation order imposed following his release from custody.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no error in principle and held that, given the seriousness of the domestic offences, the three-year probation term was not demonstrably unfit.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, Andrew Smoke and Eric Smoke, appealed their convictions for the second degree murder of Andrew “Scruff” Davis.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both appeals, finding no error in the trial judge’s instructions to the jury regarding aiding and abetting, after-the-fact conduct, and the use of statements attributed to Andrew.

The court also found the verdict against Eric was not unreasonable, given the circumstantial evidence, including DNA and video evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference, sexual exploitation, sexual assault, and uttering a threat, arguing the trial judge made three errors in the jury charge.

The appellant contended the trial judge failed to provide a Villaroman instruction regarding circumstantial evidence, failed to instruct on a motive to fabricate, and failed to instruct that the accused did not have to explain the complainant's motives.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that a Villaroman instruction was not required as the case was not wholly or substantially circumstantial, and that the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the burden of proof without reversing it.

The self-represented appellant appealed a verdict of not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault and mischief charges.

The Crown conceded that the appellant was not advised of his right to request a trial in French pursuant to s. 530(3) of the Criminal Code at his first appearance.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had expressed a choice for a French trial and never waived it in a free and informed manner.

The Crown failed to prove that the breach of language rights did not cause prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the NCR verdict was quashed, and a new trial in French was ordered.

This is an appeal from a sentence where the Crown and appellant jointly requested a reduction in the custodial sentence.

Due to an inadvertent error, the negotiated joint submission of 26 months was not presented to the sentencing judge, who imposed a 36-month sentence.

The sentencing judge deemed herself functus officio to correct the error.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and substituted the sentence to reflect the original 26-month joint submission, less pre-trial credit, to rectify the procedural unfairness.

The appellant, Ivan McManus, appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence imposed for seven counts of robbery.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentencing judge's findings that the appellant met the criteria for a dangerous offender under s. 753(1) of the Criminal Code, demonstrating a high likelihood of harmful recidivism and intractability.

The court also upheld the indeterminate sentence, finding no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public, given the appellant's extensive criminal and institutional history, psychiatric diagnoses, and consistent refusal or failure to engage in treatment programs.

The appellant, Claudio Hernandez Barrios, appealed his conviction for forcible confinement.

The conviction arose from an incident where he prevented the complainant from leaving his bedroom.

The trial judge found him guilty based on his own testimony, where he admitted standing at or in the doorway, thereby preventing her exit.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, claiming he had no intent to block the complainant.

The Court of Appeal applied the stringent standard for misapprehension of evidence, as established in R. v. Lohrer and R. v. Sinclair, and found that the appellant failed to meet this standard.

The Court concluded that the trial judge was entitled to find the offence of forcible confinement proven based on the appellant's own evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition restricting his travel to Ontario.

He sought to expand travel privileges to Quebec for snowboarding.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable given the appellant's significant public safety risk and the potential difficulties in managing his condition or obtaining services out of province.

The court emphasized the deference owed to the Board's risk management decisions.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and flight from police, arguing errors in principle and demonstrable unfitness.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended the respondent's prior custodial sentences and mischaracterized her criminal record as unrelated.

The Court concluded that the original six-month custodial sentence was demonstrably unfit given the gravity of the offences and the respondent's high degree of moral responsibility and history of defying authority.

The appeal was allowed, and an additional 18 months less a day of incarceration was imposed.