Eliott Behar

The appellant, a caregiver, was convicted of fraud after emptying the elderly complainant's savings account of over $126,000.

The complainant provided a videotaped statement to police but died before trial.

The trial judge admitted the statement under the principled approach to hearsay.

On appeal, the appellant argued the statement lacked threshold reliability and that its admission violated trial fairness, relying on European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the statement was sufficiently reliable given the oath, video recording, and corroborating bank records.

The 21-month custodial sentence was also upheld due to the serious breach of trust.

The appellant appealed his sentence for assault, raising issues regarding pre-sentence custody credit under s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code and the trial judge's consideration of the victim's severe injuries.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the pre-sentence custody issue was not clearly raised below and the appellant was being released on parole that day.

The court also held that the sentence was entirely fit given the seriousness of the assault and the severity of the injuries.

The appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and was sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

He appealed his conviction, seeking to introduce fresh evidence to argue his guilty plea was involuntary because a co-accused allegedly threatened to kill him if he did not plead guilty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to introduce fresh evidence and the appeal, finding the appellant's claims lacked credibility and were contradicted by the record, including his own letter of apology and the withdrawal of charges against the co-accused.

The appellant appealed a dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence, relying on fresh psychiatric and correctional evidence developed after a lengthy delay in perfecting the appeal.

The court accepted that the original designation and sentence were proper when imposed and held that the updated record did not establish a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the appellant's risk in the community, as required for a long-term supervision order.

The court emphasized the appellant's extensive history of serious sexual and violent offending, persistent treatment resistance, and the contingent nature of the more optimistic expert opinion.

The appeal was dismissed.