William John McCulligh

The offender pled guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking (108 grams).

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence reduced to 8 years for harsh pre-trial conditions, while the defence sought 4-5 years less time served plus additional credit for lockdowns and triple bunking.

The court determined the appropriate global sentence was 7 years, reflecting the mid-level commercial quantity and the offender's prior record, balanced against his guilty plea and rehabilitative potential.

After applying 29 months of standard pre-sentence custody credit and an additional 12 months of Duncan/Marshall credit for severe lockdown and triple-bunking conditions, the net sentence imposed was 43 months.

A lawyer pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000, having misappropriated over $3.2 million from multiple clients and estates through a profound breach of trust.

The court sentenced him to 58 months imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence due to the gravity, duration, and significant impact of the fraud, and the exploitation of his professional position.

Restitution orders were issued in favour of the Law Society of Ontario and one estate, while a claim for legal fees by another victim was declined.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario that ordered a new trial after the trial judge made a factual error regarding the year the accused underwent sexual offender treatment.

The majority of the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's misapprehension of evidence had an impact on the conviction and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court of Canada restored the conviction, holding that the trial judge's error regarding the specific year of the sex offender treatment did not have any material impact on the trial judge's overall assessment of the similar fact evidence or the accused's credibility when the trial judge's reasons were considered as a whole, and that no miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault of his daughter, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence concerning his sex offender treatment.

The majority of the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's factual error regarding the date of the appellant's treatment was material, impacting the assessment of his propensity to re-offend and the weight given to similar fact evidence.

This misapprehension played an essential part in the reasoning leading to the conviction.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.

A dissenting judge argued the error was not material to the overall reasoning.

The appellant challenged convictions for sexual offences against two child complainants on the basis that the trial judge misapprehended key defence evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge incorrectly concluded the appellant first mentioned a cushion during cross-examination, when that detail had already been given in examination-in-chief, and then used that mistaken premise as the main articulated basis for rejecting the appellant's credibility.

Applying the material misapprehension standard, the court found the factual error infected the core reasoning on credibility and rendered the convictions unsafe.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered at the Crown's discretion.

The offender was convicted after jury trial of importing 3.532 kilograms of cocaine into Canada, contrary to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court considered the applicable sentencing range for multi‑kilogram cocaine importation, noting appellate authorities establishing a typical range of six to eight years for couriers importing large quantities for personal gain.

Aggravating factors included the substantial quantity of cocaine, motivation for financial gain, limited remorse, and a prior drug-related conviction abroad.

Mitigating factors included a difficult upbringing and the limited role of the offender as a courier.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, the court imposed an eight-year sentence with enhanced credit for pre‑trial custody.

In a family law proceeding following a motion addressing spousal support, the respondent wife sought costs from the commencement of the proceeding after obtaining a consent order for ongoing support.

The court held that under Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules, costs must generally be sought and determined promptly after each step in the proceeding.

Relying on appellate authority, the court found that costs relating to earlier steps where no costs were requested or reserved could not later be claimed.

The wife was therefore limited to seeking costs for the motion heard on December 9, 2011.

Given her success on the support issue and an unaccepted offer to settle that was substantially matched by the result, the court awarded full indemnity costs for the motion.

The appellant appealed his conviction for the historic assault and sexual assault of his stepdaughter.

At trial, the judge repeatedly commented on the Crown's failure to call the complainant's older sisters and drew inferences about the family dynamics and the sisters' quick response to the allegations.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge impermissibly speculated about possible abuse of the older sisters by the appellant and used this speculation to bolster the complainant's credibility.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed from a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision upholding his convictions for impaired driving and blowing over.

The Court of Appeal found no error in law, holding that the trial judge properly assessed the appellant's evidence regarding the amount he drank and appropriately evaluated the evidence for each charge independently.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for one count of sexual assault and his sentence of 29 months' imprisonment.

He argued that the jury's guilty verdict on one count and acquittal on another were inconsistent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdicts reconcilable because the complainant's delayed disclosure regarding the second count could have raised a reasonable doubt.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the 29-month term was within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed his conviction for the sexual assault of his stepdaughter.

At trial, the Crown called a clinical and forensic psychologist to address frailties in the complainant's evidence, including delayed disclosure and memory issues.

The trial judge relied heavily on this expert opinion to find the complainant credible.

However, the tape of the expert's cross-examination was lost before it could be transcribed.

The Court of Appeal held that the missing transcript prevented a proper assessment of whether the trial judge erred in her use of the expert evidence, raising serious concerns about the safety of the verdict.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction and five-month custodial sentence, arguing that he was denied a fair trial because he was unrepresented by counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had given the appellant an opportunity to retain counsel and, when refused, properly assisted him with his defence in accordance with the duty outlined in McGibbon.

The court concluded the appellant conducted his defence intelligently and reasonably effectively, and found no error in principle with the sentence.