Victor O’Brien

In an aged criminal prosecution, the court issued a case management ruling imposing deadlines for perfection and response materials on numerous Crown and defence pre-trial motions, including applications under s. 276, Part VIII, Charter ss. 7, 8, 10(b), 11(b), and third-party records requests.

The court held that the matter was far too dated to pause while an outstanding s. 11(b) ruling and a proposed recusal application remained unresolved.

Acting under the Criminal Code case management provisions, the court required the parties to proceed promptly, treated prior adjournment requests as moot, and barred further motions without leave.

The ruling stressed the constitutional obligation of all justice system participants to move criminal proceedings forward efficiently.

The appellant appealed his convictions for multiple counts of fraud, attempted fraud, identity theft, and fraudulent personation, as well as the restitution order imposed.

The appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence, including a psychiatric report and his own affidavit, to explain why he did not testify at trial and to establish what his evidence would have been.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to adduce fresh evidence, finding that the appellant made a free and informed choice not to testify, as evidenced by written instructions signed before trial.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal regarding the $300,000 restitution order, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's sentencing discretion.

The appellant, Jude Thangarajah, sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from his 2017 convictions and to seek leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, finding that Mr. Thangarajah did not form a timely intention to appeal, failed to adequately explain the lengthy delay, and did not demonstrate arguable grounds of appeal.

The court also found that granting the extension would prejudice the Crown and the administration of justice, and emphasized the importance of finality for the complainant and the public.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded firearm and a prohibited device following a shootout incident.

He appealed his global sentence of three years and five months, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to properly weigh multiple mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or law and concluding that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, affirming the deference owed to the sentencing judge's discretion.