Alysa Dawn Holmes

The accused was charged with three offences: fraudulently possessing computer passwords obtained from the Genesis Market (an online marketplace for stolen credentials obtained through malware), possessing four forged pieces of identification, and breaching a probation order prohibiting possession of identity documents not legally issued in his name.

The Crown proved that the accused controlled two Genesis Market accounts and purchased thousands of stolen credentials using cryptocurrency funded through a Coinbase account registered in his name.

Four forged driver's licenses bearing the accused's photograph but different names were found in his residence.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts after determining that the electronic evidence from the Genesis Market database was authentic and reliable, that the accused controlled the relevant accounts, and that the forged identification documents were clearly counterfeit.

The Crown appealed an acquittal for an offence under s. 172.2(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes agreeing or arranging to commit enumerated sexual offences against a person believed to be under a certain age.

The respondent had communicated with an FBI agent posing as a mother of young girls, discussing sexual acts and travel arrangements.

The trial judge acquitted, finding the Crown failed to prove the respondent intended to follow through with the plan, characterizing the communications as fantasy role-play.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in interpreting the mens rea, clarifying that the mens rea is the intent to agree, not the intent to carry out the underlying offence.

The court further clarified that the actus reus requires a "true consensus" or genuine agreement on the part of the accused, even if the other party is an undercover officer.

As the trial judge's reasons were unclear on whether the actus reus was proven under the correct legal test, the appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered on the relevant count.

The Crown appealed the sentencing judge's decision not to designate the respondent, who pleaded guilty to child pornography offences, as a dangerous or long-term offender.

The sentencing judge erred by requiring a "direct" or "root cause" of psychological harm for Serious Personal Injury Offence (SPIO) designation and by misinterpreting the risk of re-offending for long-term offender status.

The Court of Appeal clarified that child pornography offences can constitute SPIOs based on a broader causation standard and that the long-term offender criteria do not necessarily require a risk of violent re-offending.

The appeal was allowed, and a new hearing was ordered.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose a person under fourteen, and invitation to sexual touching of a person under fourteen.

The appeal concerned errors in the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's and appellant's credibility.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by improperly relying on "oath-helping" evidence (information not in evidence) to resolve a material inconsistency in the complainant's testimony regarding whether she touched the appellant's penis.

This error tainted the conviction for invitation to sexual touching.

The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the conviction for invitation to sexual touching and ordering a new trial on that count, while dismissing the appeal from the conviction for sexual interference.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, uttering threats, and two counts of breach of recognizance.

The appeal argued that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient, specifically regarding "gaps" in the complainant's testimony, the absence of a key witness, and the failure to explicitly instruct on legal principles like *W.(D.)*.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficient and that no cumulative errors warranted a new trial.

Leave to appeal sentence was also denied as no grounds were advanced.

The Crown appealed the seven-year sentence imposed on the respondent for attempted murder of his pregnant intimate partner.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to adequately apply the primary sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence, particularly in a domestic context, by misunderstanding the aggravating impact of planning and deliberation, and by misidentifying the appropriate sentencing range.

The Court emphasized that rehabilitation should not outweigh denunciation and deterrence in such serious cases and that sentencing ranges evolve with societal understanding of domestic violence.

The Court also found an error in the application of "Duncan" credits, which were treated as a direct reduction rather than a mitigating factor.

The appeal was allowed, and a sentence of 15 years imprisonment was substituted, less credit for time served.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered an identified error by the summary conviction appeal court judge regarding consent versus capacity to consent.

However, the court found this error inconsequential given the trial judge's thorough analysis of the evidence.

Leave to appeal was refused.

D.D. appealed his conviction for sexual interference and sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the adult complainant.

The trial judge improperly evaluated the complainant's testimony, given when she was 18, as if she were a child, inferring truthfulness from "childlike details" rather than applying adult credibility criteria while considering the childhood context of the events.

Nikolas Jergovic appealed a conditional discharge order from the Ontario Review Board (ORB), seeking an absolute discharge or a new hearing.

He was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for arson in 2010 and has been under ORB supervision.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario reviewed the ORB's decision for unreasonableness, a wrong decision on a question of law, or a miscarriage of justice.

The Court found that the ORB applied the correct "significant risk" test and that its conclusion, based on evidence of potential relapse into drug abuse leading to unlawful conduct, was reasonable and supported by the record.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conditional discharge.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Board's finding of a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's decision to maintain a conditional discharge.

The court found that despite some progress, the appellant's recent threatening and physically aggressive conduct, including an offer to pay someone to stab his psychiatrist and multiple Code White incidents involving staff assaults, supported the Board's finding of a significant threat.

Fresh evidence regarding the appellant's improved mobility and subsequent aggressive behaviour was admitted and considered.

The applicant sought bail pending appeal from convictions for break and enter with intent and assault.

The trial judge found the applicant broke into his former wife's home and assaulted her while bound by a recognizance.

The applicant was sentenced to two years less a day imprisonment.

Applying the test under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, the court found the appeal not frivolous but with slim prospects of success.

The court was satisfied the applicant would surrender but determined that his detention was necessary in the public interest due to a pattern of domestic violence, breach of prior orders, and inadequate proposed sureties.

The motion for bail pending appeal was dismissed.