Constance Baran-Gerez

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

He had forced his way into the complainant's apartment, confined her, and eventually ordered her to watch him masturbate.

The appellant argued that because he did not touch the complainant or verbally threaten her, his actions did not amount to a threat of sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that in the context of the violent and sexualized atmosphere created by the appellant, his actions constituted a threat to apply force of a sexual nature.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference, arguing that the trial judge failed to comply with s. 16.1(6) of the Canada Evidence Act by not explicitly asking the child complainant to promise to tell the truth.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that no particular words are required to comply with the provision, and the complainant's agreement after the trial judge explained the importance of telling the truth was sufficient.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing he was arbitrarily detained when an off-duty police officer asked to see the bottom of his boot, which linked him to a series of break and enters.

The trial judge found that the officer calmly approached the appellant and asked to see the tread pattern, and the appellant voluntarily complied without any physical or psychological restraint.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding there was no violation of the appellant's rights under sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge improperly considered an unproved allegation that he used a beer bottle as a weapon during an attack.

The Court of Appeal accepted this argument for the purpose of the appeal but found that, even disregarding the use of the bottle, the sentences were fully justified.

The assaults were vicious and life-threatening, and occurred in the context of serious assaults on good Samaritans who tried to intervene.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a vicious, unprovoked attack on an innocent victim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was fit and that the trial judge correctly emphasized denunciation and general deterrence without treating the appellant as if he had been convicted of attempted murder.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for prolonged assaults on a vulnerable victim.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle by the trial judge and held that the sentence reflected the serious nature of the offences and the vulnerability of the victim.

The sentence was not demonstrably unfit, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for aggravated assault, which involved the near-fatal shooting of his fiancée while he was on probation and subject to a weapons prohibition order.

The Court of Appeal found the global sentence, considering pre-trial custody credit, to be well within the appropriate range.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The respondent was convicted by a jury of fraudulently obtaining GST refunds.

Prior to sentencing, the trial judge declared a mistrial, finding that the Crown's failure to preserve the respondent's employment records amounted to an abuse of process and a breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to declare a mistrial after the jury's verdict had been recorded.

The matter was remitted to the trial judge for sentencing.

The appellant appealed his convictions for historical indecent assault and sexual assault against three sisters, as well as his 18-month custodial sentence.

He argued the verdicts were unreasonable due to an inconsistency with an acquittal on one count, and that the trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence of him exposing himself and masturbating.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdicts were based on a careful assessment of the evidence and the similar fact evidence was properly admitted to rebut the defence's attacks on the complainants' credibility.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the custodial sentence was appropriate given the breach of trust and psychological harm.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued that the trial judge erred regarding similar fact evidence and that Crown counsel's cross-examination prejudiced his right to a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the similar fact evidence relevant and admissible, and no significant departure from standards by Crown counsel.

The sentence appeal regarding the term of probation was also dismissed, as the probationary period was deemed appropriate given the appellant's serious record and the nature of the offence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for attempting to break into the complainant's home with the intent to assault her.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not specifically instructing the jury that the complainant's evidence regarding prior uncharged assaults was unreliable, as the parties had agreed her evidence regarding the main events was unreliable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury would have understood that all of the complainant's evidence was unreliable if unconfirmed, and that there was ample independent evidence of the appellant's intent.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence of 11 months' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the appellant did not meet the requirements for setting aside a guilty plea as set out in R. v. Adgey.

The court also found the 11-month sentence to be fit and dismissed the sentence appeal.

The appellant appealed his sentence for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge erred in characterizing his driving as a breach of trust, finding he was a long-term alcohol abuser, and imposing an unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle regarding the breach of trust characterization, as the appellant assumed responsibility for driving the victim home.

The court also found evidence supported the alcohol abuse finding and concluded the sentence, while at the high end of the range, was not unfit given the aggravating circumstances.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference and sought leave to appeal his sentence of two years less a day.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting similar act evidence, failing to resolve an alleged recantation by a witness, and failing to properly consider collusion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the admission of the similar act evidence and noting the verdict was amply supported by the uncontradicted evidence of the complainant.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the appellant was in a position of trust, the abuse occurred over six years, and he had a prior criminal record.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed after convictions for two counts of sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge unlawfully combined an intermittent custodial term with a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 732(1) permits intermittent imprisonment only for sentences of 90 days or less, and that s. 742.1 requires the sentence to be served in the community rather than partly in custody and partly in the community.

Relying on the statutory wording and appellate authority, the court concluded that the blended sentence was illegal.

Leave to appeal was granted, the appeal allowed, and the weekend jail condition deleted.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing errors in the trial judge's charge to the jury, the admission of evidence, and the handling of the complainant's emotional state.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as of right, finding no merit in the respondent's jurisdictional arguments and concluding that the trial judge made no errors in the circumstances of the case.