Étienne Lacombe

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence for multiple driving offences, including impaired driving by drug, dangerous driving, impaired driving by alcohol, failure to stop at the scene of an accident, and driving while prohibited.

He received a global sentence of 46 months imprisonment, less credit, and a 10-year driving prohibition.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge properly considered the principles of totality and proportionality.

The court rejected arguments that the judge failed to consider the principle of gradualism or imposed an excessive sentence, emphasizing the appellant's serious criminal record and the nature of the offences, especially in light of legislative changes increasing maximum penalties for driving offences.

This is an appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition that denied an absolute discharge for an individual found not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault charges.

The Board determined that the individual continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a lack of insight into their mental illness, persistent cannabis use, and the resulting mental decompensation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by the evidence, emphasizing the deference owed to the Board's risk assessment.

The Crown appealed from a Court of Appeal decision that set aside convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference of a child complainant, ordering a new trial on the basis that the trial judge misapprehended the child complainant's evidence on a matter of substance and failed to grapple with inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and her mother.

The Supreme Court, for the reasons of the dissenting judge at the Court of Appeal, allowed the appeal and restored the convictions, finding that the trial judge had applied a common sense approach to assessing the evidence of child witnesses, that there was no misapprehension of evidence, and that the reasons were sufficient.

The appellant, A.J., appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge engaged in prohibited stereotypical reasoning and uneven scrutiny of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's credibility was firmly rooted in the evidence and not based on stereotypes.

The court also found no uneven scrutiny, as the trial judge provided detailed and reasoned explanations for his credibility findings regarding both the complainant and the appellant.

The appellant, M.M., appealed a suspended sentence and three years' probation for criminal harassment, arguing the trial judge erred by considering the "gendered context" as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, affirming that it was open to the trial judge to consider the context of criminal harassment often occurring when a woman rejects a man's advances.

The court also upheld the trial judge's decision that a conditional discharge was contrary to the public interest and dismissed the fresh evidence application.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and making sexually explicit materials available to a child.

The appeal challenged these convictions on grounds of the trial judge's misapprehension of the complainant's evidence regarding her mother's presence during the alleged sexual touching, and the sufficiency of the trial judge's reasons.

The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference and ordering a new trial on those counts, finding that the trial judge had materially misapprehended key evidence and provided insufficient reasons.

However, the conviction for making sexually explicit material available was upheld.

The dissenting judge would have dismissed the entire appeal, arguing that the trial judge correctly applied the common sense approach to child witnesses and that reasons were sufficient.

The appellant, diagnosed with schizophrenia and found not criminally responsible for violent acts, appealed a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had concluded she remained a significant threat to public safety and that detention, with community privileges, was the least onerous disposition.

The appellant argued the Board erred in its threat assessment and in ordering detention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasoning was supported by evidence, particularly regarding the appellant's lack of insight into her illness and the risk of decompensation if unsupervised.

The court also found no error in the Board's decision to impose a more restrictive disposition given the changed circumstances, including the failure of a previous treatment regime.