QUESTIONS? PHONE: 416.304.1414 | 1.866.304.1921 WE ACCEPT COLLECT CALLS 24HRS/DAY

Our Appellate Cases

Derstine Penman has represented clients at all levels of appeal and have met with success on numerous appeals to the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.  We are provincial and national leader in criminal appeals, with our cases frequently being cited in publications such as the well-respected ‘Ontario Reports’.


Below is a small list of our appellate cases:




R v Nur, 2015 SCC 15

This Supreme Court case represented a seminal change to Canadian criminal law. The Court decided that the mandatory prison sentences that were required to be imposed in this case were cruel and unusual and therefore infringed s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. …Read More.



R v Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13

This case followed the principles established in R. v. Nur and found the mandatory minimum sentence for Possession of Controlled Substance for the Purpose of Trafficking to be unconstitutional. Dirk Derstine was asked by the Criminal Lawyers assn to intervene for them at the Supreme Court of Canada. … Read More.



R v Culotta, 2018 SCC 57

This Supreme Court decision was narrowly split, 3 to 2, as to whether or not the appellant’s Charter rights had been infringed by the police in the course of their investigation and in the taking of blood samples without consent. … Read More.






R v Chouhan, 2020 ONCA 40

The Derstine Penman team was successful in defending Mr. Chouhan’s procedural rights to a fair trial.  The Court agreed with our position as to whether the trial judge had erred in his interpretation of new legislation that limited the flexibility of the jury selection process.  …Read More.



R v Vickerson, 2020 ONCA 434

Derstine Penman obtained a new trial for Mr. Vickerson after he was unfairly convicted of drug offences.  The appellant had been forced into a jury trial, without a lawyer and without receiving disclosure of the Crown’s evidence. … Read More.



R v Husbands, 2017 ONCA 607
A new trial was ordered for the shooter in the Eaton Centre case after the Court found that his procedural rights had been violated by the trial judge’s decision regarding the procedure used to select the jury. The Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. … Read More.



R v Espinoza-Ortega, 2019 ONCA 545

Defence counsel successfully set-aside the guilty plea on appeal. The trial judge erred in law by failing to allow the appellant’s application to withdraw his guilty plea. …Read More.



R v Murphy, 2012 ONCA 573

After being convicted at trial, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the trial judge erred by refusing to allow the defence to call a witness who was expected to admit culpability for the offences charged.  The Court agreed with our position and a new trial was ordered. …Read More.



R v Pozo – Ontario Court of Appeal

On appeal, the Court agreed with our position that the trial judge had inappropriately interfered with the trial process. A new trial was ordered for our client. …Read More.



R v Watson – Ontario Court of Appeal

Mr. Watson appealed his convictions on the grounds that trial judge improperly interjected and interfered with his defence counsel’s cross examination of police officers, and also during counsel’s submissions. The Court held that the interference gave rise to a tainted trial. A new trial was ordered on the basis that there was an appearance of trial unfairness. …Read More.






R v K.S., 2017 ONCA 307

Accused was found not guilty of four counts of sexual offences, each involving same complainant. The Crown appealed the acquittals. On appeal, we were successful in upholding the verdict of not guilty.  …Read More.



R v Hall, 2016 ONCA 13

Mr. Hall was acquitted of all charges after a trial by judge alone.  The Crown appealed the acquittals on the basis that the trial judge had improperly excluded evidence from the trial. The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal and dismissed the Crown’s appeal. They held that the trial judge did not err in finding that Mr. Hall’s Charter rights had been infringed and that he did not overstate seriousness of police misconduct. …Read More.



R v Salmon, 2013 ONCA 203

The Crown appealed the trial judge’s ruling that there had been an abuse of process and a violation of the accused’s section 7 Charter rights. The proceedings were stayed on the basis that the police fabrication of evidence such as he found occurred in this case, so clearly contravened fundamental notions of justice and undermined the integrity of the criminal judicial process that it was necessary to dissociate the court from the continued prosecution of the case.  The Court of Appeal agreed with our position that the trial judge had not erred. …Read More.



R v Horan, 2008 ONCA 589

Mr. Horan had been acquitted at trial with a judge and jury. The Crown appealed on the grounds that the trial judge erred in several respects. Derstine Penman successfully upheld the acquittal. …Read More.



R v Multani – Ontario Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the Crown’s appeal against acquittal. The Court held that the trial judge’s decision to disallow certain evidence was not unreasonable. …Read More.






R v White, 2020 ONCA 207

Mr. White was designated as a Dangerous Offender after having been found to have a committed a “serious personal injury offence”, despite not having actually physically harming anyone. …. Read More.



R v Collins, 2019 ONCA 1004

Mr. Collins’ pre-trial credit for time served was improperly calculated. On appeal, we were successful in having the correct calculation imposed and a proper sentence was imposed. …Read More.



R v Davies, 2008 ONCA 209

The appellant was sentenced on a number of convictions. The trial judge declined to give Mr. Davies adequate credit for time served in jail while awaiting trial.  The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge had erred in denying the offender the appropriate amount of pre-trial credit. …Read More.






  1. c. J.P.G., 2019 ONCA 256

The appellant sought to overturn his conviction on the basis that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance and did not properly represent him when he changed the language of the trial from French to English, without his knowledge. …Read More.



Some helpful links:
Ontario Court of Appeal:
Supreme Court of Canada: