Andreea Ioan Baiasu

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.

The appellant appealed his convictions and 12-month sentence for offences including assault and transmitting an STI (Herpes II) to the complainant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant knew he was infected and engaged in unprotected sex, constituting a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable person.

The court also found no error in the assault conviction or the refusal to impose a conditional sentence, noting the appellant was on probation for domestic assault at the time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault causing bodily harm and disobeying a court order, as well as his sentence as a dangerous offender.

He argued the conviction was unreasonable due to acquittals on related counts, and that the sentencing judge erred by relying on expert evidence that considered the acquitted counts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient corroborative evidence for the assault charge to distinguish it from the acquitted counts.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly disregarded the acquitted counts and the expert confirmed their opinion on the appellant's risk level would remain unchanged.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board refusing to order an independent assessment at the Royal Ottawa Hospital.

The appellant did not challenge his continued detention at Oak Ridge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that an independent assessment was unnecessary was reasonable and supported by the uncontradicted evidence of a doctor.

This is an addendum to an appeal book endorsement that reduced the appellant's custodial sentence to two years less a day.

The Court of Appeal ordered a further 10-week reduction to the sentence to reflect five weeks of pre-sentence custody credited on a two-for-one basis, which had been granted by the sentencing judge but inadvertently omitted from the initial appellate decision.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of stolen property, having been acquitted of robbery and forcible confinement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding strong evidence that the appellant knew the machine in his possession was stolen.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, as the trial judge erred in assuming a two-year floor for the offence.

The three-year sentence was deemed outside the appropriate range and reduced to two years less a day.

The self-represented appellant appealed a finding of not criminally responsible.

Amicus curiae advised the court that there was no basis for challenging the judgment.

The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant's status would be reviewed annually by the Ontario Review Board and his desire to return to Armenia could be brought to the board's attention.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to fairly put the defence's position to the jury and erred in instructing the jury regarding the complainant's past criminal lifestyle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's charge and recharge adequately addressed the defence theory and any concerns about the complainant's lifestyle.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the sentence fit.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to three years' imprisonment after receiving 1.5:1 credit for pre-trial custody.

He appealed the sentence, arguing he should have received 2:1 credit and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly considered the appellant's poor parole prospects, extensive criminal record, and defence-caused delays in reducing the pre-trial custody credit.

The court also held the sentence was fit given the circumstances of the convenience store robbery.

The appellant appealed from a conviction by the Ontario Court of Justice.

At the request of the appellant, the appeals were abandoned.

The Crown appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed a certiorari application and upheld a preliminary inquiry judge's order discharging the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge committed a jurisdictional error by weighing competing inferences rather than determining if the inferences sought by the Crown were available on the evidence.

The matter was remitted to the preliminary inquiry judge with a direction to commit the respondent to stand trial on all charges.

The applicant, a medical doctor, sought leave to appeal his summary conviction for sexually assaulting a patient.

He argued that the trial judge failed to adequately address inconsistencies between the complainant's trial testimony and her videotaped police statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the case did not raise an issue of general significance to the administration of justice and that the merits of the appeal were not strong, as the trial judge's reasons sufficiently explained the basis for the conviction.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his application for a stay of proceedings due to a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of delay, complexity, and prejudice.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed based on fresh evidence, and the conditional sentence was reduced to 15 months with varied terms.

The appellant, an Aboriginal woman with a history of trauma including residential school attendance, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after causing permanent brain damage to her two-year-old child.

She was sentenced to two years less a day in custody.

On appeal, she argued the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider her circumstances as an Aboriginal offender under the Gladue framework and erred in assessing aggravating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge properly applied the Gladue methodology and that a custodial sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his convictions for criminal harassment and uttering threats, arguing violations of his s. 11(b) Charter rights, ineffective assistance of counsel, and trial judge errors.

On the day of trial, the appellant appeared without his lawyer, refused substitute counsel, and elected to proceed unrepresented without bringing a s. 11(b) application despite the trial judge's warnings and offer of an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal granted leave only on the s. 11(b) issue but dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had received legal advice, was aware of his options, and chose to proceed despite warnings.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that his statements to police were involuntary because he was not re-cautioned, and that the trial judge failed to direct the jury on the issue of failure to retreat regarding self-defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the failure to re-caution did not render the spontaneous statements involuntary and that the failure to retreat was never a live issue at trial.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault and the resulting conditional sentence.

He argued the trial judge should have found implied consent to the assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the complainant was moving away when pushed and did not consent to a fight.

On the sentence appeal, the Court declined to impose a discharge but varied the sentence from a conditional sentence to a suspended sentence with probation, which was stayed as the conditional sentence had already been served.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to read portions of cross-examination to the jury after reading the examination-in-chief they requested.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that defence counsel had not identified any specific portions to be read and that the trial judge had reminded the jury of the extensive cross-examination and the defence's theory of collusion.

The court found no prejudice or unfairness to the appellant.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and failing to comply with probation, arguing the trial judge misapprehended crucial evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended the appellant's testimony regarding the position of a sofa bed and whether he forgot his parents' honeymoon.

The Court concluded that these misapprehensions figured prominently in the trial judge's credibility findings and reasoning process, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction, challenging the validity of a search warrant issued under section 487(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that there was ample evidence upon which the issuing justice of the peace could reasonably have formed an independent judicial opinion that the statutory requirements had been met.