Andreea Ioan Baiasu

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that imposed a detention order.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge to care for his parents, while amicus curiae argued for a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety and had breached the terms of his previous conditional discharge.

The court upheld the Board's conclusion that a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Crown sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal court (SCAC) decision that overturned the respondent's sexual assault conviction and ordered a new trial.

The SCAC found that the trial judge misapprehended the complainant's evidence regarding whether she consented to the initial sexual contact.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the SCAC, noting clear inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony about her initial consent that the trial judge failed to recognize when assessing her credibility.

Finding no error in the SCAC's decision, the Court of Appeal denied the Crown's application for leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 15, 2010.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the basis that it was moot.

The appellant appealed a dangerous offender designation, arguing that the Crown must show evidence of untreatability to sustain the order.

The Court of Appeal rejected this submission and dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly focused on whether there was a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the appellant's risk in the community.

The appellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm and related offences.

The Crown's case relied heavily on a co-accused who recanted his preliminary inquiry testimony at trial, providing exculpatory evidence for the appellant.

The trial judge admitted the preliminary inquiry testimony for the truth of its contents but failed to properly distinguish between the exculpatory and inculpatory portions in her Vetrovec warning to the jury.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by instructing the jury to seek confirmatory evidence for both the exculpatory and inculpatory portions of the testimony, rather than tying the exculpatory evidence to the reasonable doubt standard.

The appeal was allowed, convictions quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The three young person appellants appealed their convictions for gang sexual assault and forcible confinement.

They argued the trial judge erred in his credibility findings and application of the W.(D.) analysis regarding their defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) analysis, made supportable credibility findings, and reasonably concluded the complainant did not consent and the appellants did not have an honest belief in her consent.

The appellant appealed a $56,000 restitution order imposed following a joint submission for his minor role in a fraud.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge gave insufficient weight to the appellant's future ability to pay, noting he was an immigrant student with limited employment prospects who received little personal benefit from the fraud.

The appeal was allowed and the restitution order was set aside.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of stolen goods and his 15-month sentence.

The Crown's case relied on video surveillance identifying the appellant supervising the export of stolen high-end vehicles.

The appellant argued the video quality was insufficient for identification.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's assessment of the video quality was reasonable.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 15-month sentence was not manifestly unfit given the appellant's prior criminal record and his directing role in the sophisticated scheme.

The appellant appealed his fraud conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable due to unreliable bookkeeping by a witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the bookkeeping irrelevant to the fraud finding.

The trial judge was entitled to rely on other witness evidence and the defence's admission that the appellant received the money from the joint venture.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal for being an occupant in a motor vehicle knowing there was a firearm.

The trial judge found the respondent was in the car in an honest attempt to prevent her intoxicated boyfriend from doing something stupid.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error given this blameless purpose and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown appealed sentence arising from historical sexual offences committed against two complainants, including indecent assault of a child involving digital penetration and intercourse, and a separate sexual touching offence against a teenage babysitter.

The court held that the sentence of one year imprisonment followed by a consecutive one year conditional sentence was outside the proper range for serious sexual offences committed by a person in a position of trust.

While recognizing the offender was not in the exact position of a parent, the court concluded that a penitentiary sentence was required.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and the sentence was increased to a total of three years and six months' imprisonment.

The appellants, grandparents and legal guardians of the victims, appealed their convictions for second degree murder and forcible confinement, as well as their respective parole ineligibility periods of 22 and 20 years.

The victims, a five-year-old boy and his six-year-old sister, were subjected to prolonged starvation, abuse, and confinement in a squalid room, resulting in the boy's death.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding that the trial judge properly inferred the requisite mens rea for murder from the prolonged course of conduct and correctly rejected the defence's expert evidence on diminished capacity.

The court also upheld the admission of police statements and found the confinement vastly exceeded any lawful parental authority.

The sentence appeals were dismissed, with the court affirming that the extreme cruelty and inhumanity of the offences justified the lengthy parole ineligibility periods.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's disposition, noting the trial judge considered all relevant principles, the seriousness of the offence, a Gladue report, and the respondent's substantial progress in addressing his alcohol problem prior to sentencing.

The respondent's post-sentence progress further confirmed the wisdom of the sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting his self-defence claim under s. 37 of the Criminal Code by focusing solely on the complainant's injuries.

The incident, captured on video in a holding cell, showed the appellant provoking the complainant and then punching him once in the face, causing serious injuries.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the video evidence and the injuries to determine that the force used by the appellant was excessive in the circumstances.

The appellant appealed an order of the Ontario Review Board detaining him in a medium security facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's determination that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety and that detention was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition was reasonable based on the evidence.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention in a maximum security facility at the Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene.

The appellant sought a transfer to a medium security facility and escorted privileges within a ten-kilometre radius.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board had considered all relevant information, including the appellant's age, and had imposed the least onerous and least restrictive disposition given his frail mental condition, aggressive behaviour, and unanimous medical opinion that he was not manageable in a less secure environment.

The appellant appealed a 2008 disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which ordered his continued detention in a medium security ward.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Court declined to remit the matter for the imposition of conditions, finding the issue moot because the Board was already conducting a multifaceted hearing that would address the appellant's current circumstances and conditions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault after allegedly slashing the victim's face.

The victim gave an unsworn audio-taped statement to the police identifying the appellant as the assailant, but left the country the next day and could not be located for trial.

The trial judge admitted the statement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding necessity and reliability.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in concluding that no benefit would be served by cross-examining the victim, given evidence of possible animus, unsavoury character, and suspicious departure.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault against two young cousins, as well as his four-year sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence, finding no collusion between the complainants, providing inadequate reasons regarding his limited opportunity to commit the offences, and misapprehending medical evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or adequacy of reasons.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the four-year term was within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal noted merit in the argument that the Board improperly focused on the risk of the appellant breaching a release order rather than the risk to public safety.

However, based on fresh evidence that the appellant had relapsed into substance abuse and was returned to the institution, the Court declined to interfere with the Board's order.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting the appellant could renew his argument for a conditional discharge at his next Board hearing.