Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
On sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal reduced Deborah Oguntoyinbo’s global sentence, vacated the sentence on a withdrawn count, and adjusted restitution orders.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Matthew Armstrong’s appeal from robbery convictions, holding the verdict was reasonable and the electronic messages were properly assessed.
Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Vikkas Rana’s sexual assault conviction, finding no reversible misapprehension of evidence and no sentencing error.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed conviction appeals in a cocaine trafficking case, finding no error in the trial judge’s circumstantial evidence analysis.
The conviction is upheld because the trial judge did not breach the appellant's right to be present or procedural fairness and correctly found secured common areas to be part of the dwelling-house; however the sentencing judge erred in principle by effectively penalizing the appellant for exercising the right to trial, warranting resentencing to reduce custody from 18 to 15 months while retaining two years probation and leaving ancillary orders intact; a conditional sentence remains unavailable due to community safety concerns.
Source excerpt
The trial judge erred in finding breaches of ss.9 and 10(a). Section 12(3) of the CCA does not, by necessary implication, suspend s.10(b) under s.1 (Orbanski is inapplicable because s.12(3) imposes no temporal limits and permits more intrusive searches); the respondent’s s.10(b) right was breached but the breach was brief and causally unrelated to discovery of the firearms, and the s.24(2) Grant balancing favors admission. Result: appeal allowed, acquittal set aside, new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
The court declined to exercise its s.679(7.1) jurisdiction and directed the applicant to attend the Superior Court because the Crown demonstrated a legitimate need to cross-examine the surety that could not be accommodated in this court before the scheduled hearing and the trial court is better placed to conduct the contested bail hearing; the Crown's undertaking not to seek the applicant's immediate arrest mitigated the risk of injustice from surrendering to custody.
Source excerpt
The trial judge's reasons on both the s.11(b) and s.8 Charter applications were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review because they merely adopted Crown submissions without articulating the factual findings and legal analysis necessary to resolve contested issues (including accessibility of trunk contents under CCA s.12(2)(b)), and an appellate court will not perform the missing fact‑finding or legal analysis; accordingly the conviction is set aside and a new trial ordered on count #3.
Source excerpt
The trial judge did not err: he explicitly considered the appellant's age and relevant comparative authorities, there was no defence evidence showing that advanced age or health made a penitentiary sentence inappropriate, he properly weighed mitigating factors but found high moral blameworthiness, and the five-year concurrent global sentence was fit and within the appropriate range; the appeals are dismissed.
Source excerpt
The trial judge did not err in admitting a truncated account of the prior incident because it was probative of the appellant's state of mind and whether he took reasonable steps to ascertain consent; the most prejudicial aspects were excluded, and appropriate mid-trial and final limiting instructions sufficiently mitigated the risk of impermissible propensity reasoning; YCJA protections were not engaged on these facts; the sentencing judge properly balanced aggravating and mitigating factors and correctly concluded a conditional sentence would be disproportionate.
Source excerpt
Explore more
