Carmen Lorra Elmasry

The appellant was convicted of invitation to sexual touching and sexual interference of a child victim aged six to eight years at the time of the offences.

The appeal raised five grounds challenging the conviction: (1) admission of a video-recorded statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code despite a three-year-four-month delay between the alleged offences and the recording; (2) denial of permission to lay foundation for a third-party records application during the s. 715.1 voir dire; (3) failure to consider exculpatory evidence in the form of the appellant's denials; (4) erroneous finding of absence of motive to fabricate; and (5) uneven scrutiny of Crown and defence evidence.

The appellant also appealed his 54-month sentence on the basis that the principle of restraint was not properly applied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals.

The appellant appealed his sentence of six years imposed for robbery with a restricted firearm and related offences.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) that the mandatory five-year minimum sentence under s. 344(1)(a)(i) violates s. 12 of the Charter and should be struck down; (2) that the trial judge erred in failing to give enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody given harsh detention conditions; and (3) that the trial judge erred in principle by failing to adequately weigh the appellant's personal circumstances and the restraint principle applicable to young first offenders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the sentence.

On appeal from a sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice, the appellant sought a variation of the sentence.

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to 133 days.

The appeal was heard on the same date as the decision was rendered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm and his 12-month conditional sentence including eight months of house arrest.

The appeal raised three grounds: the validity of the search warrant, the admissibility of utterances made upon arrest, and jury instruction discrepancies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's validation of the search warrant, no error in admitting the spontaneous and voluntary utterances despite a Charter breach under section 9, and no legal error in the jury instructions.

The court upheld the conditional sentence as appropriate given the serious nature of the offence and the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a Summary Convictions Appeal Court decision dated August 15, 2016, which had dismissed an appeal from a conviction entered on October 21, 2014.

The Court of Appeal found that the proposed appeal did not raise a question of law of importance to the administration of justice and that the merits of the proposed appeal were not sufficiently strong to warrant granting leave to appeal.

Leave to appeal was refused.

An appellant found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2000 for assault and uttering threats appealed his disposition of detention in a general forensic unit with community living privileges at the discretion of the hospital.

The appellant argued the Board's finding that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and sought a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's majority decision, finding the disposition reasonable based on the appellant's persistent pattern of threatening behaviour, impulsivity, inability to control anger, and the structured environment's role in preventing escalation to physical violence.

The appellant appealed his conviction on four sexual offences involving his 16-year-old daughter.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty based on the complainant's testimony regarding two incidents of fondling, corroborated by explicit messages sent immediately after the first incident and a photograph showing an inappropriate cuddle.

The appellant's primary ground of appeal challenged the trial judge's rejection of his girlfriend's alibi evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge properly applied the W. (D.) test and was entitled to reject the girlfriend's evidence in light of her friendship with the appellant, the opportunities he had to be alone with his daughter, and her role in photographing the inappropriate cuddle.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition finding him to constitute a significant threat to public safety and ordering his continued detention at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable based on the appellant's mental health condition (Bipolar Affective Disorder with psychotic symptoms), history of violent offences involving weapons, documented noncompliance with medication, substance abuse issues, and concerning conduct while detained including the discovery of "to do" lists containing weapons.

The court rejected arguments that a conditional discharge should have been considered, noting the appellant had only recently begun substance abuse programming.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 12, 2017, regarding his placement and security regime.

The appellant and Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care argued that the Board's decision was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable.

The Board had concluded that public safety would be compromised if the appellant was transferred unless the maximum security regime at Waypoint could be effectively replicated at the receiving hospital, which would negate the purpose of transfer.

The court noted that further assessment by an independent assessor remained possible at the appellant's annual hearing scheduled for early April.

Following a guilty plea to robbery with a restricted firearm, assault causing bodily harm, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, pointing a firearm, dangerous driving, and possession of a firearm while prohibited, the applicant was sentenced to six years' imprisonment less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and bail pending appeal.

The motions judge granted both applications, finding that the applicant had demonstrated a bona fide intention to appeal within the requisite period, that the delay had been adequately explained, and that the proposed appeal raised arguable grounds of merit.

The court found that the applicant would suffer unnecessary hardship if detained pending appeal and that detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and other offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board maintaining her detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

She argued the Board erred in its application of the Winko test by considering the risk of psychological harm sufficient to meet the threshold and in finding a detention order was the least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded the appellant remained a significant threat to the public and that a conditional discharge would be insufficient to manage her risk.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible due to schizophrenia, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that changed his status from a conditional discharge to a detention order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's refusal to grant an absolute discharge, as the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the detention order, finding the Board failed to adequately explain why a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition given the appellant's compliance with previous conditions.

The conditional discharge was reinstated.

The accused was sentenced after being convicted at trial of multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a firearm without a licence, possession of a prohibited weapon, and possession of firearms contrary to a prohibition order while on parole.

The court emphasized the offender’s extensive criminal record spanning nearly two decades, prior firearms offences, and the fact that the offences were committed while on parole for armed robbery.

The court rejected enhanced credit for pre-trial custody under s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, finding the offender had not demonstrated likely loss of early parole as contemplated by the Supreme Court in Summers.

Denunciation and specific deterrence were treated as paramount objectives for firearms offences.

A global sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment was imposed, less credit for 278 days of pre-trial custody, together with DNA, lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture orders.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish sufficient evidence to commit four accused persons to trial for armed home invasion robbery, kidnapping with intent to hold for ransom, and related offences.

The evidence included direct testimony from the complainant, extensive video surveillance from the complainant's home security system, CTV news helicopter footage of the police takedown, and mall security video.

The court found sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed trier of fact could reasonably find guilt on charges of armed robbery, kidnapping with use of firearms, masked commission of indictable offences, and escape from lawful custody.

All four accused were committed to stand trial in Superior Court before a judge and jury.

Sentencing following convictions for two robberies and related offences including breach of a weapons prohibition order.

The offender robbed a pharmacy and a convenience store, threatening the pharmacy technician by claiming to have a gun and openly carrying an expandable baton during the second robbery.

The offences were committed while the offender was bound by both a probation order and a weapons prohibition order, and he possessed a stolen vehicle used in the robberies.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the offender’s lengthy criminal record and escalating violent conduct.

Accepting a joint submission, the court imposed a global sentence of five years’ imprisonment with credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 35 months to be served, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

In a certiorari application arising from criminal proceedings, the moving party challenged a trial-level order made under s. 486.3(4) of the Criminal Code and also challenged a disclosure ruling concerning a complainant video statement.

The court held that although a prior order by another judge was not binding in the circumstances, the key procedural defect was the trial judge’s failure to address the request to cross-examine the affiant on the Crown affidavit when the application was renewed.

That denial of cross-examination on affidavit evidence constituted a denial of natural justice reviewable on certiorari.

The challenged s. 486.3(4) order was quashed and remitted to the trial judge for rehearing.

The disclosure branch was dismissed as a matter potentially raising appeal issues rather than certiorari grounds.