David Friesen

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended his evidence due to interpretation issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and upholding the trial judge's credibility assessments.

The appellant also sought a stay of proceedings for Charter breaches arising from his delayed release and strip search at a correctional complex following a bail order.

The Court found his Charter rights were violated and granted a one-month sentence reduction as a remedy.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and his 34-month sentence arising from intimate partner violence.

He argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on myths and stereotypes regarding delayed reporting and returning to an abusive relationship.

The Court of Appeal found no legal error, concluding the jury was properly equipped to assess credibility.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal but reduced the sentence by one month to remedy post-conviction Charter breaches involving arbitrary detention and an unlawful strip search after bail pending appeal was granted.

The appellant was convicted of possessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material (CSAEM) after a search of his home yielded devices containing over 6,000 images.

On appeal, he challenged the validity of the search warrant, the plain view seizure of a phone on his porch, and his alleged psychological detention during the search.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no Charter breaches during the investigation.

However, the Court found that the appellant's ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights were breached post-sentencing when he was arbitrarily detained and unlawfully strip-searched at Maplehurst Correctional Complex despite having been granted bail pending appeal.

The Court declined to enter a stay of proceedings but reduced his 12-month sentence to 11 months as a remedy under s. 24(1).

The appellant was convicted at trial of defrauding the public of over $5,000 after running Ponzi-like schemes that raised approximately $12 million from 41 investors between 2007 and 2009, causing losses of over $10 million.

On appeal, the appellant argued for the first time that the fraud did not constitute a fraud "on the public" because the victims were specifically identified individuals rather than members of the public solicited indiscriminately.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that the hallmark of fraud on the public is simply that the victims can rationally be grouped as a whole, which was satisfied by the interconnected nature of the Ponzi scheme victims.

The court also rejected the appellant's challenges to the trial judge's treatment of the Crown's forensic accounting expert report and the defence expert's evidence, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's analysis.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, convicted of 12 counts of fraud, brought a motion seeking directions and assistance in cross-examining police and civilian witnesses regarding the late disclosure of police emails.

The appellant sought production of redacted portions of emails generated between 2021 and 2024 concerning the disclosure process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it was a request for production governed by the Trotta test.

The court concluded there was no reasonable possibility that ordering production would result in admissible fresh evidence or assist in developing a successful ground of appeal, as there was no air of reality to the underlying abuse of process claim.

The appellant sought to appeal a superior court bail review decision under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after release relief was denied.

The respondent moved to quash for lack of jurisdiction.

The court held that no criminal appeal right exists to the court from decisions under ss. 520 or 521, and provincial legislation cannot create an appeal route in criminal matters absent federal statutory authority.

The court also held that asserting Charter issues did not establish jurisdiction where no statutory right of appeal exists.

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction, and the fresh-evidence request was left unaddressed.

In a criminal appeal involving fraud convictions, the moving party sought additional non-privileged disclosure to support proposed fresh-evidence abuse-of-process claims.

Applying prior case-management directions and existing disclosure rulings, the court found no basis for further compelled production on the issues properly before it and dismissed the motion.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted the Crown’s application to revoke the respondent’s bail pending retrial on historical sexual offences.

The court found that the motion judge erred in law by concluding that the release order was a nullity due to a typographical error referencing the wrong provision of the Criminal Code.

The error was deemed minor and not prejudicial.

The respondent’s breach of a condition prohibiting contact with children under 16 was established, and the release order was revoked.

The appellant, convicted of fraud, brought two motions related to his appeal: one for document production (dismissed as redundant) and another to appoint a special commissioner under s. 683(1)(e) of the Criminal Code to inquire into alleged email deletion by police and alteration of trial transcripts, seeking fresh evidence for a stay of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both motions, finding no credible evidence to support the allegations of obstruction of justice or abuse of process, and that the proposed inquiry would not reasonably lead to admissible fresh evidence under the Shulman test.

The applicant sought bail pending appeal from convictions for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that his detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The court emphasized the high enforceability interest due to the seriousness of the sexual offences against a child in a position of trust, and found the grounds of appeal to be weak, thus outweighing the reviewability interest.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose, appealed his convictions.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's credibility assessment of the complainant and the appellant, the interpretation of text messages, and the admissibility of fresh evidence regarding the appellant's post-conviction dementia diagnosis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on credibility and the interpretation of inculpatory text messages as admissions of sexual abuse.

The court also rejected the fresh evidence application, finding it lacked cogency and due diligence.

The appellant, S.M.C., sought to appeal a sexual assault conviction but failed to perfect the appeal despite numerous court appearances, extensions, and warnings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned, citing egregious and persistent non-compliance with court directions, including a prior failure to comply with bail conditions.

The court emphasized that the justice system cannot operate effectively if court orders are disregarded.

The appellant was convicted of fraud over $5,000 and possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000.

He appealed his conviction and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The court found that the trial judge's central credibility finding against the appellant was tainted by two errors: procedural unfairness, as it was based on an issue not raised by the Crown in submissions or cross-examination, and a material misapprehension of evidence, specifically failing to consider that the appellant and a key defence witness were legally prohibited from communicating.

These errors resulted in a miscarriage of justice, precluding the application of the curative proviso.

The appellant was convicted of forgery-related offences and tax fraud arising from his operation of a fake identification business and failure to report income.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by preventing him from reopening his case, improperly finding him vicariously liable as a 'directing mind', misapplying the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule, relying on inadmissible affidavits, unevenly scrutinizing evidence, reversing the burden of proof for tax fraud, and dismissing a stay application for pre-charge delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no legal errors, properly assessed the evidence, and correctly concluded that the appellant directly controlled the illegal business and deliberately evaded taxes.

The applicant, S.T., sought release pending the determination of his appeal from a sexual assault conviction and a 28-month penitentiary sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the criteria under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, specifically whether the appeal was frivolous, if the applicant would surrender, and if detention was necessary in the public interest.

The court found the appeal was not frivolous and that the applicant would surrender.

On the public interest criterion, balancing enforceability and reviewability, the court determined that the anticipated delay in hearing the appeal, relative to the sentence length, weighed in favour of release.

The court also addressed the suitability of an out-of-province surety, concluding that the Criminal Code's provisions for enforcing forfeiture orders (s. 771(3.1)) permit writs of fieri facias to be delivered to sheriffs in other provinces, thereby accepting the Vancouver-based brother as a suitable surety.

The application for release was granted, with bi-weekly reporting but no curfew.

The appellant, L.C., appealed his conviction for sexual interference and sexual assault, seeking a new trial based on proposed fresh evidence.

The fresh evidence, consisting of two affidavits from the appellant's sister, aimed to challenge the credibility of one of the complainants by suggesting prior discussions (collusion) among the complainants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, refusing to admit the fresh evidence.

The court found the appellant's sister's evidence lacked credibility due to her bias and inconsistencies, and it was not sufficiently probative to undermine the trial judge's finding that the complainant's testimony was untainted by collusion.

The applicant, J.M., sought an order from the Court of Appeal for Ontario under s. 684(1) of the Criminal Code for state-funded counsel to represent him in his appeal against a sexual assault conviction, after Legal Aid Ontario denied funding.

A chambers judge had previously dismissed a similar application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that there is no right of appeal from a chambers judge's refusal to appoint funded counsel under s. 684.

The court clarified that while it has concurrent jurisdiction with a single judge to consider such applications, it would only exercise this de novo jurisdiction if there were a sufficient change in circumstances since the initial decision, which was not present in this case.

The court also affirmed that provincial legislation cannot create rights of appeal in criminal matters.

Three family members appealed their convictions and sentences arising from a scheme to steal lottery tickets from customers at their family convenience store, one of which won a $12.5 million prize.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding all verdicts were reasonable.

On sentence, the court reduced one appellant's custodial sentence from four to three years and reduced her restitution obligation, but otherwise upheld the sentences.

The court upheld the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum imprisonment provisions under s. 462.37(4) of the Criminal Code, distinguishing Boudreault on the basis that the fine in lieu of forfeiture regime targets offenders who possessed proceeds of crime, unlike the indiscriminate victim surcharge.

The s. 11(b) application was dismissed under the transitional exceptional circumstance provision from Jordan.

On the Crown's appeal, the court entered convictions against the acquitted co-accused on theft and possession counts and ordered a new trial on fraud and possession of proceeds counts.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder, sought review of a single judge's decision denying bail pending his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a Court of Appeal detention order.

The Court of Appeal panel dismissed the application, holding that s. 679(1)(c) of the Criminal Code does not apply to bail pending leave to appeal from a bail decision under s. 680, but rather to appeals from conviction/sentence.

While the Court could exercise its power under s. 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act to stay the detention order, the original release plan, which relied on specific sureties, could no longer be met, and substituting new sureties would constitute a significant refashioning of the original order, which was characterized as a "close call."

Following a successful Crown application to review the accused's release on bail under s. 680 of the Criminal Code, the Court of Appeal posted its reasons online.

Both the Crown and the accused raised concerns that the reasons should be withheld or edited due to a publication ban under s. 517.

The Court held a hearing and determined that the reasons must be published in full.

The Court found no express statutory authority applying s. 517 to s. 680 reviews, noted that the original bail judge's reasons were already widely available online, and concluded that publishing edited reasons would be unintelligible and contrary to the open court principle.