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
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Jason MacLaughlin’s conviction and sentence appeals in a circumstantial identity case involving online communications, phone records, and voice evidence.
After attributing 163 days of delay to the defence (84 days for failure to retain counsel May 9–Aug 1, 2023 and 79 days for counsel unavailability for June 25–26, 2025), the net delay was 842 days (1005 total minus 163 defence) which is below the 30‑month presumptive ceiling of 914 days; accordingly there was no breach of s.11(b) and the application for a stay was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge reasonably preferred the daughter's contemporaneous police statement over her viva voce recantation in light of corroborating evidence, the s.11(b) delay was lawfully reduced by periods attributable to the defence or exceptional circumstances so there was no Charter breach, the proposed fresh evidence was inadmissible or would not have altered the result, the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, and the information should be amended under s.683(1)(g) to remove wording inconsistent with the conviction.
Source excerpt
Although the trial judge made some errors in attributing delay (failing to allot any time to defence-caused resolution delay and in quantifying COVID knock-on delay), her contextual findings about court availability, defence availability, and the absence of evidence to quantify COVID impact were owed deference and the net delay nonetheless exceeded the Jordan ceiling; therefore the stay of proceedings was properly upheld.
Source excerpt
Sentencing for cocaine possession for the purpose of trafficking. The court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed 22 months' custody plus weapons and DNA orders.
The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction to stay a driving prohibition pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court because Criminal Code s.320.25 is the specific statutory authority governing stays of prohibition orders and contemplates that leave to appeal must have been granted; additionally, even assuming jurisdiction over the fine, the applicant failed to satisfy the established test for a stay (Smug): the appeal appears unlikely to succeed, the stay is not necessary in the public interest, and granting it would undermine public confidence.
Source excerpt
The Court dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals because the application judge correctly allocated the periods of delay to the defence and denied the s.11(b) stay, the trial judge properly admitted count-to-count similar fact evidence based on the appellant's DNA on both complainants and factual similarities, the trial judge considered and rejected innocent explanations for DNA, credibility findings and common‑sense inferences (including which vehicle was used) were not palpably or overridingly erroneous, and any alleged sentencing error concerning breach of trust did not render the gl…
Source excerpt
Bail pending appeal was denied because, on the required balance, the enforceability interest and public confidence in immediate enforceability of a sentence for very serious, privacy‑invading sexual offences outweighed the reviewability interest: the Crown's case was strong, the grounds of appeal did not clearly surpass the minimal not‑frivolous threshold on preliminary assessment, and the proposed release plan was insufficient to ameliorate public confidence concerns.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge did not err: he correctly declined a new Rowbotham application absent a material change of circumstances, took reasonable measures to protect the fairness of a trial with a self-represented accused, properly applied the law on abandonment under s.8 and on linguistic discretion, gave adequate jury instructions on intent and motive, and imposed a sentence that was within range and supported by the evidence including the monetary impact of the fraud.
Source excerpt
The motions judge did not err: the appellant expressly waived part of the delay, the net delay was 29 months which is below the 30‑month Jordan ceiling, so there was no s.11(b) breach; there was no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's findings and no basis to interfere with the jointly recommended sentence, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
