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.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms and drug offences, arguing his arrest and the subsequent search of his vehicle violated his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal found the police had reasonable grounds for the arrest based on confidential informer tips and surveillance.

Applying the Grant framework, the court held that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence was admissible under s. 24(2).

The appellant also appealed his six-year sentence, seeking an adjustment to avoid deportation consequences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that immigration consequences cannot justify an unfit sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the conviction did not depend on accepting the police evidence, as the appellant's own evidence established both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that overturned the accused's four sexual assault convictions.

The summary conviction appeal judge had found that the trial judge erred by failing to consider the exculpatory value of acquittals on four other counts and by limiting the cross-examination of a Crown witness.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the convictions, holding that the acquittals had no exculpatory value on the other counts and that the trial judge properly limited cross-examination that lacked relevance and probative value.

The young person appealed findings of guilt for three offences related to the sexual touching of a young child while babysitting.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to properly scrutinize the complainant's evidence, improperly shifted the burden of proof by referencing the appellant's failure to testify, and failed to properly consider defence expert evidence regarding the appellant's psychological profile.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the burden of proof.

The appellant, a paralegal, acted as an agent for an accused in a Provincial Offences Act trial.

After the trial, the justice of the peace initiated proceedings under s. 50(3) of the Act and barred the appellant from appearing before him as an agent.

The appellant's application for certiorari was dismissed by the Superior Court.

On appeal, the appellant argued the justice of the peace lacked jurisdiction to make the order after the trial concluded and alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the justice of the peace had jurisdiction under the second branch of s. 50(3), which relates to an agent's general conduct and understanding of their duties, and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge's reasons were insufficient given his acquittal on criminal negligence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably concluded the appellant's driving was a marked departure from the standard of care.

The court noted the appellant was joy riding, driving extremely quickly, and failed to slow down despite seeing an ATV, meaning his distraction by a stereo was not a mere momentary lapse but part of a pattern of dangerous driving.

The trial judge properly applied the modified objective test for dangerous driving.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms and drug-related offences, arguing that evidence discovered during a police night search of his home under a telewarrant should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to a s. 8 violation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not err in his Collins analysis.

The breach was not serious, the police did not act in bad faith, and the circumstances were urgent, justifying the admission of the non-conscriptive evidence.

The appellant, an Aboriginal offender and residential school survivor, appealed his sentence for sexually abusing his step-daughter.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in principle by failing to consider the appellant's Aboriginal background and upbringing under s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.

Balancing the severe aggravating factors of the offence against the appellant's tragic upbringing and physical ailments, the Court granted leave to appeal and reduced the sentence to four years.

The appellant appealed a finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) and a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the NCR finding, holding that the appellant's guilty plea was unequivocal and there was no dispute regarding fitness.

The appeal from the Board's order was dismissed as moot because the appellant was scheduled to be moved to another facility.

The appellant appealed a term of his conditional sentence that prohibited him from working outside his home for the first ten months.

Although the Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's original conditions, it admitted fresh evidence regarding a tragic event involving the appellant's daughter and his worsening medical condition.

The Court allowed the appeal and varied the condition to permit the appellant to seek and maintain employment, other than self-employment, at a place approved by his supervisor.

The appellant appealed from a conviction entered by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that despite alleged errors in the trial judge's reasons, the core of the decision was clear and there was no basis to interfere.

The sentence appeal was abandoned.

The appellant appealed his conviction for break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The trial judge relied on the statutory presumption under s. 348(2)(a) of the Criminal Code to find the requisite intent, as the appellant broke into an apartment but left after thirty seconds without committing an offence.

The appellant argued that leaving without committing an offence constituted 'evidence to the contrary' to displace the presumption.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the intent is ascertained at the point of entry and that merely failing to commit an offence inside does not constitute evidence to the contrary, as this would render the statutory presumption meaningless.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault causing bodily harm.

He argued that he merely held his hand over the complainant's face in response to a racial slur and that she did not suffer bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that evidence of swelling, cuts, bleeding, and headaches was sufficient to constitute bodily harm.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed; although the two-year sentence was at the high end of the range, it was justified by the appellant's egregious record for assaulting women.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Crown improperly used a police officer's notes to refresh the complainant's memory by reading them verbatim.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the manner of refreshing memory was improper, but found no prejudice because verification occurred during a phone call between the complainant and the officer, and the complainant had some independent recollection of the calls.

The court also rejected the admission of fresh evidence as irrelevant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed from a summary conviction appeal court decision that upheld his conviction.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence irrelevant and inadmissible, and identifying no error in the summary appeal court judge's reasons.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two robberies and two counts of using an imitation firearm.

The Court of Appeal found the convictions related to the 7-11 store robbery unreasonable, as the Crown's case relied on two highly unreliable witnesses who were crack cocaine addicts with spotty memories, and the store clerk's description did not match the appellant.

Those convictions were quashed.

However, the Court upheld the convictions for the Country Blenz Donut Shop robbery, finding that despite the unsavoury nature of the Crown's witness, the trial judge properly applied Vetrovec considerations and the evidence supported the conviction.