Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 9d

R. v. O'Neill, 2025 ONCA 683: An appellant can get bail pending appeal for a conditional sentence. They'd never want it though. So they can apply to suspend the sentence. The Oland test governs the application.
coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/i...

R. v. O'Neill - Court of Appeal for Ontario

coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca

1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 10d

Judges play with fire when they decide a case based on demeanour. This is especially so, I say, when the witness is an accused youth.

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 10d

R. v. I.M.B., 2025 ONCA 678 at para. 13: New sexual assault trial because the judge relied on the evidence of a witness whose cross-examination was improperly terminated.
coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/i...

R. v. I.M.B. - Court of Appeal for Ontario

coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca

1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 10d

This matters because an accused person may be forced to set an OCJ trial date that’s so soon they cannot reelect. Makes for an uninformed election. Solution is for the crown to consent to reelection. But what if the crown refuses to consent?

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 11d

Wild to think that this murder appeal partly turns on the Crown's inflammatory rhetoric about lean. This is the one appeal where expert evidence about rap music would've actually helped the defence.

1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 11d

R. v. Marshall, 2025 ONCA 638 at para. 148: "The trial Crown’s closing was graphic, inflammatory, and contained rhetoric that falls below the expected standard of Crown counsel." But the Court of Appeal is going to let this one pass.
coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/i...

R. v. Marshall - Court of Appeal for Ontario

coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca

2 2 1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 13d

It’ll be interesting to see how this will play out with the OCJ’s Jordan protocol. The protocol can result in the court setting an OCJ trial date after 6 months, even if disclosure isn’t substantially complete. The trial aims to complete around 15 months from the trial date.

1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 14d

Para 95: The mitigating effect of no criminal record loses much of its force where the offending is repeated and occurs over a lengthy period of time.

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 14d

R. v. Sheppard, 2025 SCC 29: Friesen applies to historical sexual abuse against children. Sentences for historical offences are properly determined in accordance with the sentencing regimes and societal perspectives that prevail at the time of sentencing
decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-...

R. v. Sheppard - SCC Cases

decisions.scc-csc.ca

1 1 1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 16d

R. v. G.H., 2025 ONCA 667 at para. 9: The 60-day re-election deadline is the first OCJ trial date set by the court and is not limited to the stage of the trial in which evidence is heard. Rescheduling only pushes the deadline forward but not back.
coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/i...

R. v. G.H. - Court of Appeal for Ontario

coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca

1 1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 16d

Appellant wins the Charter battle but loses the 24(2) war. I'm curious why there wasn't a sentence appeal, which would have allowed the appellant to argue for a reduced sentence that accounts for his newfound Charter right violations.

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 16d

youtu.be/neUaSTSKFZc?...

Official Ron White - I Got Thrown Out of a Bar

YouTube video by Ron White Official

youtu.be

1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 16d

Shoutout to the comedy lovers out there

1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 16d

R. v. Pahal, 2025 ONCA 668 at para 75: To avoid crossing the line & effecting a detention while executing a search warrant, police officers should act “solely to ensure the integrity of the search”. If they exceed, they must provide occupants with 10(b)
coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/i...

1 1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 17d

This puts the persuasive onus on the Crown to adduce the texts in re-examination, skirting around s. 278.1. There are, however, significant strategic downsides to this play.

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 17d

R. v. Ranu, 2025 ONCA 663: My thoughts. There is a difference between production (s. 278.1) and persuasion. D could've maybe crossed that the Crown's failure, through the C, to produce these "many more" messages shows fabrication. ...
coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/i...

1 2

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 17d

The Crown has a right of appeal to the SCC.

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 17d

The Court splits on what "advantage in business" is and whether the TJ's error requires a new trial. Regarding a new trial, the majority and dissent cite para. 11 of Sparks-Mackinnon (left 📷). The right 📷 is how the dissent applies it. Is he using the test correctly? I genuinely am unsure.

1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 17d

s. 3(1)(a) only requires that, for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an advantage in business, an accused offered or gave a foreign public official a benefit contemplating that, in exchange, the public official would act or omit to act in connection with the performance of their official duties.

1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 17d

R. v. Arapakota, 2025 ONCA 660: s. 3(1)(a) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act does not require that a person offering or making a payment to a foreign official foresaw the precise act or omission they would seek from the official in return
coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/i...

R. v. Arapakota - Court of Appeal for Ontario

coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca

1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 21d

This is purely academic because the appellant was never getting released. But it's an interesting peek into Trotter JA's assessment of the offences' gravity. It will also look bad when the parole board later sees that the ONCA thought the appellant was too dangerous for community supervision.

1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 21d

One interesting thought from this case is the trial judge revoked bail after the presumption of innocence expired on the pubic interest ground. There is no indication he said there was a public safety issue. Trotter J.A. does what the TJ didn't do. He finds that public safety prevents release.

1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 21d

The appellant is claiming the trial judge had a reasonable apprehension of bias. See the 📷. Maybe this is just a GTA thing, but revoking the bail like this happens all the time.

1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 21d

R. v. Bowie, 2025 ONCA 661 at para 27: Justice Trotter dismisses a bail pending appeal application from a convicted criminal lawyer through the public safety arm of the Oland test. This is rare.
coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/i...

R. v. Bowie - Court of Appeal for Ontario

coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca

1 2 1

Chris Sewrattan @sewrattanlaw.bsky.social · 23d

Or for one of them to testify in February and have to wait until April to complete their testimony. Is that how justice is done in Ontario? Put 11(b) aside for a second. Abuse victims deserve to be treated better.