Code

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, criminal harassment, and breach of recognizance, as well as his sentence.

The primary ground of appeal was that the trial judge erred in dismissing his section 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the 20-month net delay was justified by the exceptional circumstance of case complexity, given the 10 complainants, multiple charges, and extensive pre-trial applications.

The Court also dismissed the conviction appeals based on alleged misapprehension of evidence and unreasonable verdict.

The sentence appeal, challenging a four-month term for breach of recognizance and a 20-year SOIRA registration order, was also dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of six counts of sexual assault involving six complainants who worked at his adult massage parlour.

The trial judge dismissed the Crown's similar act evidence application but failed to instruct the jury against propensity reasoning and the cross-count application of evidence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that these limiting instructions were mandatory to prevent the jury from improperly using the evidence across counts.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso, finding that even if the similar act evidence should have been admitted, the lack of proper jury instructions meant there was a reasonable possibility the verdicts would have been different.

The conviction appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction on two counts of sexual assault relating to two complainants at a house party.

He argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and provided insufficient reasons for her factual conclusions regarding his credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessments were sound, available on the record, and supported by clear reasons.

The Crown applied for a treatment order under s. 672.58 of the Criminal Code after the accused, who suffered from schizophrenia, was found unfit to stand trial.

The judge declined to make the order because the accused did not consent to treatment, preferring the civil provincial regime.

The Crown sought certiorari to quash the decision.

The Superior Court found that while the judge erred in law by allowing the accused's lack of consent to override the statutory purpose of the treatment order, the error was not jurisdictional.

The application for certiorari was dismissed.