Tom Lemon

The appellant appealed his convictions on three counts under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to self-instruct on Vetrovec in relation to the co-accused's testimony and that the trial judge unevenly scrutinized the evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting ample independent corroborative evidence supported the co-accused's testimony.

On sentence, the appellant argued the trial judge failed to perform a proper Gladue analysis, but the court found no error given the Gladue Writer Program's inability to prepare a report and the trial judge's careful consideration of the appellant's circumstances.

Both the conviction appeal and sentence appeal were dismissed.

The appellant, Leonidas Economopoulos, appealed his convictions for drug offences and possession of proceeds of crime, arguing that the affidavit used to obtain a search warrant for his home and car was insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

The trial judge had found the affidavit sufficient, despite noted deficiencies, to conclude there were reasonable and probable grounds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, deferring to his review and agreeing that the affidavit met the legal test for ex parte authorizations, as articulated in R. v. Araujo.

The Court also rejected the argument that the trial judge improperly used cross-examination evidence to amplify the grounds for identification.

The appeal was dismissed.

M.S., a young person, pleaded guilty to multiple terrorism-related offenses, including facilitating terrorist activity, counselling to detonate an explosive device, and making/possessing explosive substances.

The Crown initially sought an adult sentence of life imprisonment but, after extensive evidence regarding M.S.'s rehabilitation efforts, including participation in Project Reset and NORMM programs, and his diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis, jointly submitted for a maximum youth sentence.

The court accepted the joint submission, imposing a three-year custody and supervision order (two years in custody, one year under community supervision), in addition to the three years already served in detention, emphasizing accountability, rehabilitation, and public protection under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

At trial, a key Crown witness recanted her videorecorded police statement in which she described witnessing the respondent sell cocaine.

The trial judge permitted the Crown to cross-examine the witness under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act but dismissed the Crown's application to admit the statement for the truth of its contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made multiple errors in his hearsay analysis, including improperly assessing necessity based on the overall strength of the Crown's case, failing to recognize the witness's availability for cross-examination as a procedural safeguard, and improperly exercising his residual discretion.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed her conviction for the importation of cocaine, challenging the voluntariness of a video statement given to an RCMP officer.

She argued the statement was made under oppressive circumstances and in exchange for an improper inducement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's determination that the statement was voluntary.

The court upheld the trial judge's assessment of the officers' evidence, concluding there was no evidence of oppressive conditions or improper promises that would vitiate voluntariness.

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft pleaded guilty to 60 charges under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, including 58 counts of unlawfully importing vehicles that did not conform to prescribed vehicle emissions standards and two counts of providing misleading information.

The company admitted to installing defeat devices in approximately 128,000 diesel vehicles imported into Canada between 2008 and 2015, which allowed the vehicles to pass emissions testing while emitting substantially higher nitrogen oxide levels during normal driving conditions.

The court imposed a fine of $196,500,000, the largest environmental fine in Canadian history at that time, reflecting the severity of the deliberate deception, the environmental and health risks created, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court dismissed an application by three individuals (two environmentalists and a former Volkswagen vehicle owner) seeking to participate as parties in the criminal prosecution of Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft for violations of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The applicants sought to present victim impact statements and make submissions regarding restitution, fines, and sentencing.

The court held that the applicants lacked standing to participate as parties, as the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has carriage of the prosecution and speaks on behalf of the public.

The court noted that while victim impact statements are permitted under the Criminal Code, there is no statutory foundation for victims to become quasi-parties to criminal proceedings.

Following conviction on charges of Attempt to Commit Mischief to Data and Unauthorized Use of a Computer, the defendant, a former Chief of Staff to the Premier of Ontario, was sentenced to four months imprisonment followed by twelve months probation with 100 hours of community service.

The defendant had directed the wiping of computer hard drives in the Office of the Premier to destroy records responsive to Freedom of Information requests and anticipated legislative committee production orders regarding the gas plant controversy.

The court found the offence struck at the heart of democratic accountability and transparency, warranting incarceration despite the defendant's otherwise exemplary character and community contributions.

David Livingston, Chief of Staff to the Premier of Ontario, and Laura Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and Strategy, were charged with Breach of Trust by a Public Official, Commit Mischief to Data, and Unauthorized Use of a Computer.

The Crown abandoned the Breach of Trust charge.

The defendants were accused of directing the wiping of twenty computers in the Office of the Premier during the transition from Premier McGuinty to Premier Wynne in early 2013, allegedly to destroy records responsive to Freedom of Information requests and potential Legislative Standing Committee Production Orders related to the controversial cancellation and relocation of the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants.

The Crown alleged the defendants obtained administrative rights through deception and hired an outside IT consultant to indiscriminately wipe hard drives.

The defendants claimed they sought only to delete personal information and Liberal Party documents from departing staff computers.

Justice Lipson found Livingston guilty on both remaining counts (Attempt to Commit Mischief to Data and Unauthorized Use of a Computer) but acquitted Miller due to insufficient evidence of her knowledge of Livingston's deceptive means in obtaining administrative rights.

The defendants, David Livingston and Laura Miller, pleaded not guilty to charges of breach of trust by a public official, mischief to data, and unauthorized use of a computer.

The Crown withdrew the breach of trust count at the close of its case.

The defendants brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the remaining two counts.

The court found that while the Crown failed to establish that actual data was destroyed, there was sufficient evidence that the defendants attempted to commit mischief to data without legal justification or colour of right.

The motion was allowed in part on the mischief to data count, which was reduced to attempt to commit mischief to data.

The motion was dismissed on the unauthorized use of a computer count.

The Crown sought to qualify Robert Gagnon, a retired OPP officer, as an expert in computer systems operation and forensic recovery of computer data.

The defence opposed qualification, arguing that Gagnon's extensive involvement in the police investigation and his expressed bias regarding the defendants' guilt disqualified him from providing independent and impartial expert evidence.

The court excluded Gagnon's evidence, finding that he had conflated the roles of expert and investigator, participated extensively in investigative strategy and team meetings, and demonstrated lack of independence and impartiality through his communications recommending charges and providing strategic legal advice to investigators.

The appellant appealed a sentence of 20 months imposed by the trial judge for his involvement in a commercial conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding that the trial judge properly considered all relevant sentencing factors, including the commercial nature of the enterprise and the appellant's level of involvement.

The court also found that the trial judge adequately considered the parity principle in distinguishing the appellant's sentence from that of a co-conspirator who received 30 months.

The appellant appealed his conviction for a drug-related offence.

The Crown's case relied on the appellant placing a bag in a car, which was later found to contain drugs after being in a motel room for over two hours.

The Court of Appeal found the verdict unreasonable, as there was no evidence regarding who had access to the bag while it was in the motel room.

The trial judge erred by looking for evidence that the contents had changed, rather than requiring the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had not changed.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and an acquittal entered.

The Crown prosecuted Dean Del Mastro, a Conservative candidate in the 2008 federal election, and Richard McCarthy, his Official Agent, for violations of the Canada Elections Act.

The charges included incurring election expenses exceeding campaign limits, making personal contributions exceeding limits, and filing false or incomplete election expense returns.

The central issue involved a $21,000 contract with Holinshed Research Group for voter identification and get-out-the-vote calling services during the election period.

The Crown alleged the contract was completed and paid for but not properly declared.

The Defence contended the contract was limited to $1,575 for partial GOTV calling only.

After a 15-day trial, the court found the Crown proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted both accused on multiple counts.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting three utterances he made to officers at the scene and in failing to properly instruct the jury on how his limited English proficiency might affect the interpretation of those utterances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the utterances were voluntary and made before the appellant was detained, and that the trial judge's jury instructions adequately addressed the language barrier issue.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended material evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's reasons and noting that she approached the appellant's evidence from a common sense perspective, ultimately finding parts of his story incredible.

The Court declined to revisit the trial judge's factual findings.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review.

Following the court's conclusion on a related appeal, counsel for the applicant conceded that the application for judicial review could not succeed.

The Court of Appeal accordingly dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition on a murder charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the extradition judge and concluding there was ample evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find the appellant guilty.

The applicant applied for judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to order her surrender to the United States under s. 57 of the Extradition Act.

She argued that the Minister failed to balance the effect of surrender against the regulatory nature of the offences, erred in treating the US prosecutor's position as irrelevant, misapplied the test for security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter, and provided inadequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the offences serious, the Minister's treatment of the prosecutor's position proper, the s. 7 analysis reasonable, and the reasons adequate.

The appellant appealed from a committal order.

The appellant subsequently abandoned her appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.