David Friesen

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respondent’s breach of a condition prohibiting contact with children under 16 was established, and the release order was revoked.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

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."

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a fraud charge, arguing the trial judge erred in his approach to the mens rea for fraud.

The respondent had lied about progress and used funds for other projects due to cash flow issues, believing he could resolve the situation.

The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that a "sanguine belief" does not negate the mens rea for fraud, which requires subjective knowledge of the prohibited act and the risk of deprivation.

The court found the trial judge erred in law and that the Crown was not advancing a new theory of guilt.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered, as the trial judge's factual findings were insufficient to substitute a conviction.

David Holden was found guilty of fraud exceeding $54 million and money laundering in a large-scale Ponzi scheme.

This decision outlines the sentencing, which includes 12 years imprisonment for fraud (concurrent with 8 years for money laundering), a restitution order, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $54,159,737, with a default imprisonment of 5 years consecutive.

The court emphasized denunciation, general deterrence, and separation due to the egregious nature of the fraud, its devastating impact on 65 victims, and Holden's significant prior record of similar offences and lack of remorse.

The Crown sought to introduce historical text messages sent by the accused to his wife, which were obtained by police pursuant to a valid general warrant.

The accused sought to exclude the messages on the basis of spousal privilege under s. 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act and s. 189(6) of the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the application, holding that spousal privilege is a testimonial privilege that protects a spouse from being compelled to testify, but does not render the communications themselves inadmissible when independently and lawfully obtained by police.

The accused was tried on charges of fraud over $5,000 and money laundering arising from his operation of two investment companies.

The Crown alleged the accused ran a Ponzi scheme, soliciting funds from investors under the guise of short-term commercial loans while actually using the money to pay earlier investors, cover operating costs, and enrich himself.

The court found that the accused intentionally deceived investors about the nature, purpose, and security of their investments.

The accused was found guilty on both counts, with the court concluding he orchestrated an overarching fraudulent scheme that deprived investors of over $54 million.

The appellant was acquitted of conspiracy to commit human smuggling but convicted of two counts of manslaughter by criminal negligence arising from an incident where he transported three Indian nationals on a Sea-Doo across the St. Lawrence River without life jackets, resulting in the capsizing of the vessel and the deaths of two passengers.

The Federal Crown appealed the acquittal on the conspiracy charge, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding the accused's statement and the surviving passenger's hearsay statements.

The accused appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge misstated the mens rea test and failed to consider all relevant circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.

The appellant was convicted of fraud in excess of $5,000 following an 11-day judge-alone trial and sentenced to three years imprisonment.

The fraud involved the negotiation of a stolen and forged TD Canada Trust bank draft in the amount of $1,895,751, which was deposited into a lawyer's trust account and used to purchase gold bars.

The appellant's role was to coordinate with an unidentified person inside the TD branch who facilitated the fraud.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

Appeal from a conviction for sexual assault.

The appellant claimed his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, arguing counsel failed to provide disclosure, failed to prepare him to testify, failed to obtain medical and phone records, and failed to confront the complainant with DNA evidence and inconsistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel's conduct fell within the range of reasonable professional assistance and that there was no miscarriage of justice.

The trial judge's credibility findings were based on the appellant's implausible evidence and were supported by the record.

The appellant appealed his conviction on multiple charges of sexual assault, non-sexual assault, and threatening with sexual violence.

The appellant and complainant had been in a relationship from 2002 to 2009.

The complainant alleged multiple incidents of sexual assault involving demands for anal intercourse and vaginal fisting, which the appellant claimed were consensual.

After a six-day jury trial, the appellant was found not guilty on one sexual assault charge but guilty on all other charges and sentenced to 4.5 years in custody.

The appeal raised issues of trial fairness regarding Crown counsel's improper cross-examination about the complainant's attractiveness and the appellant's sex drive, Crown counsel's closing address, and the trial judge's charge to the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.