R. v. Chhabra
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a sexual assault conviction, holding the trial judge reasonably assessed credibility and the Uber receipt.
- Sexual assault
- Credibility
- Evidence
- Appeal
- Sentencing
- Appellate review
Canada Source-linked decisions Coverage checked
Canada Case Law
Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
- Courts on this page
- 3 court collections
- Last checked
Search and filter Canada case law
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
R. v. Yizhak
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Alex Yizhak’s conviction appeal and sentence appeal, holding the constructive possession finding was reasonable and the 20-month custodial sentence fit.
- Firearms possession
- Circumstantial evidence
- Constructive possession
- Misapprehension of evidence
- Sentencing
- Appellate review
R. v. Roy
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from robbery-related convictions, upholding the trial judge’s refusal to stay the proceeding and a six-month sentence reduction remedy.
- Excessive force
- Charter s.7
- Remedies under s.24(1)
- Credibility findings
- Appellate review
- Criminal-appeal
Melville v. McLaren
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Janet Melville’s appeal from the Divisional Court and ordered the respondent, Shon McLaren, to receive $12,000 inclusive costs.
- Costs
- Dismissal
- Appellate review
- Appeals
- Appellate-review
R. v. Bizimana
The trial judge's reasons were deficient because they did not address whether the appellant raised a reasonable excuse; there was an air of reality to the defence given conflicting police evidence and the officers' refusal to permit recording, and the appellate court could not fairly assess credibility or determine the issue on the record; accordingly the conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered on the single charge.
Source excerpt
- Refusal to provide breath sample
- Reasonable excuse defence
- Sufficiency of reasons
- Appellate review
- Mandatory alcohol screening
Pedaya v. 261109 Ontario Inc.
The motion judge correctly applied the summary judgment standard and there were no material issues of fact or credibility that required a trial; the alleged irregularities involved third parties and did not implicate the respondent, the appellants admitted the nature of the document they signed, and the appellate standard of review (palpable and overriding error) was not met, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the Superior Court judgment is affirmed.
Source excerpt
- Summary judgment
- Setting aside mortgage
- Affidavit evidence
- Appellate review
- Costs
R. v. Yousuf
The appeals were dismissed because the trial judge reasonably found, on the totality of the circumstantial evidence and permissible inferences from the safe-house context and personal items linking appellants to the residence, that the Crown proved constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt; there was no misapprehension of evidence nor unreasonable verdict warranting appellate intervention.
Source excerpt
- Possession
- Constructive possession
- Possession for the purpose of trafficking
- Possession of proceeds of crime
- Firearms offences
- Unreasonable verdict
Skycope Technologies Inc. v. Jia
The Court of Appeal set aside a finding that Junfeng Jia was owed damages equal to a 30% Skycope equity interest, but upheld the refusal to award punitive damages.
- Wrongful dismissal
- Breach of fiduciary duty
- Misuse of confidential information
- Unjust enrichment
- Constructive trust
- Punitive damages
Gerasimov v. Ratayev
The order of the case conference judge was set aside because his reasons were inadequate and there was no evidentiary record to permit meaningful appellate review; absent an adequate record and intelligible reasons the Court could not decide the appeal on the merits and allowed the appeal and cross-appeal.
Source excerpt
- Case conference
- Settlement enforcement
- Reasons for judgment
- Appellate review
- Rules of civil procedure rr.50.13
R. v. Desouza
The sentencing judge properly applied Gladue principles by considering systemic and individual background factors, reasonably concluded those factors did not sufficiently diminish moral blameworthiness given the offender's predatory conduct and prior related conviction, and imposed a seven-year sentence within the acceptable range; there is no error in principle and the sentence is not demonstrably unfit.
Source excerpt
- Sentencing
- Gladue principles
- Human trafficking
- Assault with a weapon
- Failure to comply with release order
- Guilty plea
Explore more