Eileen E. Gillese

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference against a 13-year-old complainant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in admitting a hearsay statement from the complainant's sister and in accepting the mother's evidence regarding a change in the sisters' relationship.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in admitting the hearsay statement, the curative proviso applied because the trial judge explicitly stated he would have reached the same conclusion without it.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's acceptance of the mother's evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of child pornography, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting images found on his computer.

A computer repair technician discovered the images and called police, who viewed them without a warrant before seizing the computer.

The trial judge found breaches of section 8 of the Charter but admitted the evidence under section 24(2), noting the reduced expectation of privacy at a repair shop and the high reliability of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's section 24(2) analysis.

The appellant was convicted of assault and break and enter to commit assault arising from a home invasion.

She was sentenced to two years less a day imprisonment followed by two years of probation.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge erred by not imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly concluded a conditional sentence was unfit given the seriousness of the offence, the appellant's role as a principal, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment permitting the respondent to enforce a Delaware judgment, including an order for a constructive trust, against the corporate appellants in Ontario.

The appellants argued the motion judge failed to consider the impact of the constructive trust on third parties, thereby misapplying the Pro Swing factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge was alive to potential third-party impacts and that any unfairness was entirely speculative on the record.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for relief under ss. 134 and 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge's reasons were inadequate.

The application judge failed to appreciate the issues, did not set out the correct legal test for oppression, provided no basis for concluding there were no breaches of the Act, and failed to explain the exercise of his discretion.

The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.