Catherine V. Weiler

The appellant, a medical doctor, appealed his convictions for 16 counts of sexual assault and 1 count of sexual exploitation against 13 patients.

The appeal centered on the trial judge's universal ruling permitting the cross-count use of similar fact evidence.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing the risk of prejudice, using acquitted counts as similar fact evidence, finding sufficient similarity, and discounting the risk of inadvertent tainting from media and the CPSO website.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's treatment of the similar fact evidence or the risk of tainting.

The dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge erred in her assessment of inadvertent tainting for two counts.

The appellant was convicted of historical sexual offences against two sisters.

He appealed the convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting cross-count similar fact evidence and prior consistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably concluded the similar fact evidence had significant probative value that outweighed its prejudicial effect, and properly admitted the prior consistent statements under the narrative exception to explain the delay in reporting.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted James Cole’s motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from his convictions and sentence for dangerous driving and related offences.

Cole argued his guilty plea was uninformed and involuntary because neither he, his counsel, the Crown, nor the court were aware that his plea would trigger an automatic lifetime driving suspension under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found that Cole had adequately explained the delay in bringing the motion and had put forward arguable grounds of appeal, particularly regarding the significant collateral consequence of the automatic suspension.

The court concluded that the interests of justice warranted granting the extension.

The court sentenced Calvin Au, a Toronto Police Service officer, for assaulting Chadd Facey after a failed transaction involving a fake watch.

The court found Au used excessive force in taking Facey to the ground, though not in his capacity as a police officer.

The sentence imposed was a suspended sentence and 12 months probation, with ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The decision discusses the aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact on the victim’s family and community, and the heightened standards for police officers convicted of assault.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Conal Quinn’s appeal from his conviction for sexual assault.

The court found no reversible error in the trial judge’s exclusion of evidence under section 276 of the Criminal Code, nor in the exclusion of expert evidence regarding methamphetamine use and sexual impulsivity.

The court also rejected arguments regarding the sufficiency of the trial judge’s reasons and the finding that any consent would have been vitiated by abuse of authority.

The decision affirms the trial judge’s careful application of the law regarding sexual history evidence and the proper approach to expert testimony in the context of sexual assault prosecutions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals of Corey and Curtis Murray, who were convicted of second degree murder in the death of Trevor Seraphine.

The main issues on appeal concerned the police failure to preserve certain surveillance video evidence and the Crown’s late disclosure of the loss of this evidence.

The court found that while the loss of evidence breached the appellants’ Charter rights, the trial judge’s remedial jury instructions were adequate and a stay of proceedings was not warranted.

The court also upheld the 20-year parole ineligibility periods, finding them fit in the circumstances.

The applicant was convicted of multiple sexual offences against his daughter and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.

He applied for bail pending his conviction appeal, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting prior consistent statements and in her treatment of a Browne v. Dunn issue, and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding that while the grounds of appeal were not frivolous, they were weak and did not clearly surpass the minimal standard required to outweigh the strong public interest in enforcing the sentence for serious sexual offences against a child.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from his sentence for various firearms and drug trafficking offences.

The applicant had absconded prior to sentencing and was sentenced in absentia to 5 years and 2 months imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a timely intention to appeal, did not adequately explain the delay, and failed to show that the proposed appeal had merit.

The accused, an off-duty police officer, was charged with assault causing bodily harm after taking down a 19-year-old who had sold a fake Apple watch to his colleague.

The accused pursued the seller and tackled him to the ground after the colleague had already retrieved the money.

The court rejected the accused's defences under sections 25 (lawful arrest) and 35 (defence of property) of the Criminal Code, finding he did not intend to arrest the seller and the force used was excessive.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the takedown caused the victim's head bruise.

The accused was found not guilty of assault causing bodily harm, but guilty of the included offence of assault.

The applicant, Jacob Hoggard, sought release from custody pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, having been convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm and his appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed.

The Crown conceded the appeal was not frivolous and the applicant would surrender.

The motion judge focused on the public interest branch of the bail test, specifically public confidence.

The court found that the applicant's proposed leave application, concerning the legal test for the curative proviso under the Criminal Code, was weak as it raised a fact-specific application rather than an issue of national importance.

Given that the conviction had been unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeal and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is sparingly granted, the public interest in enforcing the sentence outweighed the applicant's interest in a second review.

The application for release was dismissed, without prejudice to reapply if leave to appeal is granted by the Supreme Court.

Jacob Hoggard appealed his conviction for sexual assault causing bodily harm to J.B., arguing the trial judge erred by admitting expert evidence on the neurobiology of trauma, failing to correct the Crown's closing submissions, delivering an unbalanced jury charge, and improperly admitting discreditable conduct evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in admitting the expert testimony as it was not necessary and risked misuse, but applied the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, concluding that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred due to the trial judge's effective corrective instructions.

The other grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Mikhail Vasiliev pleaded guilty to multiple counts of extortion, unauthorized use of a computer to commit mischief to data (related to LockBit ransomware attacks), and possession of prohibited firearms.

He deployed ransomware against three Canadian companies, causing significant financial losses and operational disruptions, totaling approximately $900,000 in damages and remediation costs.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the planned and deliberate nature of the cybercrimes, the motivation of personal gain, the substantial harm to victims, and the possession of loaded firearms.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, early resolution efforts, consent to extradition to the U.S. for related charges, anticipated restitution, and being a first offender.

The judge imposed a global sentence of four years and six months imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for cybercrime.

The applicant, Craig M., sought bail release pending appeal of his conviction for sexual offences.

His appeal was based on ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging inadequate advice regarding his right to testify and mode of trial, and general inadequate performance.

The court found the claims regarding mode of trial and general performance frivolous.

While the claim about advice on testifying was not frivolous, it did not clearly surpass the "not frivolous" threshold due to a lack of supporting evidence, absence of a waiver of privilege, and problematic, evolving affidavits.

Given the seriousness of the offences and the weakness of the proposed appeal, the application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, convicted of 33 counts of voyeurism and sentenced to two years incarceration, sought bail pending appeal.

The Crown opposed on grounds of public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice under s. 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered the applicant's history of pre-meditated voyeurism and indecent acts, as well as recent allegations of impersonating a police officer while on bail.

The motion judge found a substantial likelihood of the applicant committing further offences and that his detention was necessary for public safety.

Furthermore, releasing the applicant would undermine public confidence given the serious and escalating nature of his conduct, despite the relatively short sentence and the possibility of an expedited appeal.

The application for interim release was dismissed.

Nadeem Ahmed appealed his conviction for fraud and knowingly using a forged document, arguing his police statement was involuntary due to misleading advice regarding potential immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding that the statement was voluntary.

The court held that police are not required to explain every possible consequence of the criminal justice process, including immigration, and that the officer's statements were not misleading.

The decision emphasized the deference owed to a trial judge's voluntariness ruling unless a palpable and overriding error is demonstrated.

The Crown appealed an acquittal of Kevin Davis for impaired driving, arguing the summary conviction appeal judge erred in upholding the trial judge's decision to exclude breath samples due to a s. 10(b) Charter informational breach.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding that the "obtained in a manner" issue was not properly raised, and that the appeal judge's findings on the seriousness and impact of the breach were reasonable and owed deference.

The court emphasized that the "fresh start" doctrine should be applied cautiously to informational breaches, especially when the subsequent compliance does not fully dispel the initial breach's effects.

The appellant, Dhandev Sandhu, appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The appeal primarily challenged the adequacy of the jury charge regarding the timeframe of the offence and the trial judge's caution concerning a complainant's prior inconsistent statement made under oath.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the essential elements of the offence, the defence position, and the credibility issues, including the discrepancy in the complainant's sworn statements.

The court affirmed that a special instruction on the significance of a prior inconsistent sworn statement was not mandatory in this case, and the jury was fully aware of the credibility issues.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm, applied for release pending appeal under s. 679 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded that the appeal was not frivolous and there was no flight risk.

The court focused on whether detention was necessary in the public interest, considering public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice.

Finding no substantial public safety concerns and arguable grounds of appeal, the court granted the application for release, emphasizing that the public interest in reviewability can outweigh the enforceability interest in such circumstances.

The appellant, William Joles, appealed his second-degree murder conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred by failing to give a limiting instruction on the use of bad character evidence and by failing to provide guidance to the jury on permissible inferences from after-the-fact conduct evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no real risk that the jury would misuse the bad character evidence and that the jury had a functional understanding of the permissible inferences from the after-the-fact conduct, especially given the clear submissions by counsel and the single live issue of intention.

The accused, a former police officer, was charged with sexual assault against a complainant he met while investigating a domestic violence incident involving her.

The Crown alleged the accused pushed the complainant onto her bed and rubbed against her without consent, or alternatively, that any consent was vitiated by his abuse of authority.

The accused testified that the touching was consensual and occurred on a couch.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and found the accused's evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.

However, due to inconsistencies and frailties in the complainant's evidence, the court was left with a reasonable doubt as to whether she subjectively did not consent.

The court also found no convincing evidence that consent was vitiated by an abuse of trust or authority.

The accused was acquitted.