Elena Corinne Middelkamp

The appellant appealed a conviction for two counts of human trafficking and one count of assault.

The trial judge admitted two video-recorded statements of the complainant after she recanted at trial.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in admitting the statements and provided insufficient reasons for rejecting the complainant's trial testimony.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the admission of the statements and determining that the trial judge's reasons adequately explained why the prior statements were accepted and the trial testimony rejected.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting a young child and sentenced to three years imprisonment with orders under s. 161(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code prohibiting attendance at places where children under 16 are present and prohibiting employment or volunteer work involving positions of trust or authority over children under 16.

On appeal, the appellant sought to challenge the constitutionality of these orders for the first time, arguing they constitute punishment contrary to s. 11(i) of the Charter and were retroactively applied.

The Crown opposed raising the constitutional challenge on appeal.

The court granted leave to raise the constitutional argument, finding that the interests of justice favoured permitting the appellant to advance the argument despite it not being raised at trial.

The appellant was convicted of procuring a person to become a prostitute and exercising control, direction or influence over her movements to compel her to engage in prostitution, contrary to sections 212(1)(d) and 212(1)(h) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant was acquitted of similar charges relating to a second complainant.

The trial judge imposed a sentence of two years' incarceration on each charge, to be served concurrently, with six months' credit for pre-trial custody.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility assessment and argued the verdicts were unreasonable and inconsistent.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal sentence, arguing it was demonstrably unfit and that a conditional sentence should be imposed.

An appeal from two dispositions of the Ontario Review Board concerning a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant challenged the Board's May 23, 2017 conditional discharge order and its August 11, 2017 detention order, arguing both were unreasonable and that the August 11 order resulted from procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the May 23 order as moot and upheld the August 11 detention order, finding it was reasonable based on the appellant's relapse into drug use, violent behavior, and non-compliance with medication and reporting requirements.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated November 16, 2017.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2012 for criminal harassment and failure to comply with a recognizance.

The Board found the appellant remained a significant risk to public safety due to his psychotic disorder, active substance use disorder, lack of prosocial behaviour and motivation, and continued use of marijuana despite clinical advice against it.

The Board imposed a conditional discharge with detention order provisions.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Board erred in finding he constituted a significant threat and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by unanimous opinion of the treatment team.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision determining whether the accused should be committed to stand trial on first-degree murder or second-degree murder charges.

The Crown alleged that the accused planned and deliberately murdered the victim by shooting him in the head.

The Crown's primary evidence was surveillance video showing the accused entering the victim's apartment with a gun pointed at the victim's back.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence existed for second-degree murder but contested first-degree murder.

The court found that while the surveillance video evidence of the gun was significant, when considered in the context of all evidence—including the accused allowing the victim to leave the apartment briefly, the absence of evidence of animus between the parties, and the lack of evidence of a struggle—the evidence did not support a reasonable inference of planning and deliberation required for first-degree murder.

The court discharged the accused on first-degree murder but committed him to stand trial on second-degree murder.

The Crown applied for an assessment order under s. 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code to determine whether the accused, who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, was suffering from a mental disorder rendering him exempt from criminal responsibility.

The defence agreed the accused suffered from a mental disorder but opposed the application.

The court found that while the accused understood the nature and quality of his act, there were reasonable grounds to doubt his criminal responsibility regarding whether he understood the act was morally wrong.

The court granted the assessment order limited to the moral wrongfulness prong of the s. 16(1) test.

An appeal from the Ontario Review Board's disposition denying an absolute discharge to the appellant under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued the Board erred in concluding she posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by evidence including signs of decompensation in the community, lack of insight into her illness and the seriousness of the offences, refusal of recommended medication, and a paranoid belief system.

The Court also found the Board properly applied the least onerous and least restrictive standard in its restriction of liberty review.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown conceded that the sentence imposed exceeded the maximum available under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the sentence and varied it to 24 months' custody and supervision (16 months secure custody and 8 months community supervision), with 494 days of custody credited against the sentence, followed by 12 months' probation with specified conditions.

The court considered fresh evidence demonstrating the appellant's rehabilitative progress.

The accused, Mauro Granados-Arana, facing a first-degree murder charge, challenged the admissibility of certain crime scene and autopsy photographs that the Crown sought to tender into evidence.

The court applied the probative value versus prejudicial effect test, noting that modern juries are less easily inflamed by graphic images.

The court found that crime scene photographs were admissible without objection.

For autopsy photographs, the court ruled that photographs depicting defensive hand injuries and head/shoulder injuries were admissible.

Their significant probative value in illustrating the nature and extent of injuries, the degree of force used, the perpetrator's intent, and corroborating expert opinion outweighed their potential prejudicial effect, especially given their black and white presentation.

The application to exclude the photographs was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after a sudden and unprovoked knife attack on a stranger at a public gym.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the victim impact, and the offender’s personal circumstances including a history of depression, substance abuse, and psychological stressors.

Psychiatric evidence indicated that while the offender had a major depressive disorder, it was likely in remission and did not significantly mitigate moral blameworthiness.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for a vicious public attack with a weapon, the court determined that a fit sentence would have been 4½ years’ imprisonment.

After granting limited enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 36 months.