William Thompson

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

He argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his explanation for DNA evidence, applied unequal scrutiny to the evidence of intoxicated witnesses, and misused evidence of vaginal bleeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments were entitled to deference and that she did not err in her treatment of the evidence.

The appellants, two youthful aboriginal offenders, were convicted of offences arising from a home invasion and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

On appeal, they argued the trial judge failed to properly apply the Gladue principles and erred in treating the sentencing range for home invasions as a mandatory minimum.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding the trial judge gave insufficient weight to restorative justice objectives and the recommendations of a sentencing circle.

The court varied Jacko's sentence to two years less a day conditional, given his extraordinary rehabilitative efforts, and varied Manitowabi's sentence to two years less a day in jail followed by probation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual exploitation.

During deliberations, the jury asked a question about whether they should decide each charge strictly on the evidence presented for that charge, or if disbelief of one incident should influence their decision on another.

The trial judge restricted his answer to the question of evidence, instructing the jury not to use evidence from one charge on another, without addressing the issue of credibility.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's answer was not responsive and may have misled the jury into thinking they could not apply a credibility assessment across counts.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of 16 counts of violence and sexual aggression against his former wife and was designated a dangerous offender, receiving an indeterminate sentence.

He appealed the designation and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly considered the evidence, including expert testimony that the appellant was at the highest risk to re-offend violently and had no reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board determined that the application was timely, finding that a prior memorandum of agreement established the true term of the collective agreement.

The Board accepted the employee petition as a voluntary signification that they no longer wished to be represented by the union.

Finding that at least 45 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had signed the petition, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

One Board member dissented.