Emily Lam

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, assault causing bodily harm, break and enter, and two counts of threatening to use a weapon, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

He claimed trial counsel usurped his right to elect the mode of trial and his right to testify.

The Court of Appeal rejected the election claim, finding the appellant had not established the factual foundation and had not shown a reasonable probability he would have elected differently.

However, the court allowed the appeal on the right-to-testify ground, finding trial counsel failed to make clear that the decision to testify was the appellant's to make, failed to obtain written instructions, and that the police interview was not a functional equivalent of in-court testimony.

A new trial by judge and jury was ordered.

The accused, Tsung Ong, was charged with two counts of sexual assault.

The first count was dismissed by Crown concession.

The second count, arising from an incident at the accused's birthday party, involved the complainant alleging the accused sexually assaulted her by pressing his face into her crotch area.

The central issue was witness credibility and the Crown's burden of proof.

The court found the complainant's testimony emotionally difficult but credible, yet noted inconsistencies and lack of detail regarding the alleged incident's mechanics and surrounding events.

The defence witnesses' evidence, while not ruling out the incident, supported the accused's general practice.

Ultimately, the court found that while the accused's testimony could not be accepted as true to the exclusion of other evidence, a reasonable doubt remained regarding the reliability of the complainant's account.

Consequently, the second count was also dismissed.

The appellant, a youth, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, raising three grounds: ineffective assistance of trial counsel, erroneous dismissal of a s. 278.3 Criminal Code application for production of the complainant's therapeutic records, and improper curtailment of cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish a miscarriage of justice due to counsel's performance, that the trial judge correctly dismissed the s. 278.3 application as the records were not shown to be "likely relevant" with case-specific information, and that cross-examination was not improperly curtailed.

The court upheld the trial judge's finding of non-consensual sexual contact and the inapplicability of the honest but mistaken belief in consent defence.

The three accused were charged with various offences related to the human trafficking and sexual exploitation of an 18-year-old complainant.

The Crown alleged that one accused recruited the complainant into the sex trade, acted as her pimp, and exploited her while she suffered from a severe cocaine addiction.

The other two accused were alleged to have participated in her exploitation, sexual assault, and procuring.

The court carefully assessed the complainant's credibility, noting her memory was affected by trauma and heavy drug use, but found her core allegations against the primary accused were corroborated by digital evidence and the recovery of firearms she disposed of on his behalf.

The primary accused was found guilty of human trafficking, procuring, receiving material benefits, advertising sexual services, unauthorized possession of a firearm, and uttering threats.

The second accused was found guilty only of receiving a material benefit from sexual services (selling her cocaine), and acquitted of the other charges due to reasonable doubt.

The third accused was acquitted of all charges due to the unreliability of the complainant's evidence against him.

A defence application for a stay of proceedings based on lost police cruiser video and unrecorded interviews was dismissed.

The accused was found guilty of manslaughter following an armed home invasion that resulted in the fatal shooting of an unarmed victim.

The court found the accused was a party to the robbery and had subjective foresight that a loaded gun would be used, though it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the shooter.

Weighing the significant aggravating factors of an armed home invasion against the accused's youth, first-time adult offender status, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to lockdowns and COVID-19, the court imposed a sentence of 8.5 years.

After applying Summers and Duncan credits, the remaining sentence to serve was 39 months.

The appellant, a young racialized man, was gathered with four others in a private backyard at a Toronto housing co-operative when three police officers entered without warrant, consent, or warning and immediately questioned the men, demanding identification.

The appellant fled when asked what was in his satchel and was arrested in possession of a firearm, drugs, and cash.

The majority held that the arbitrary detention crystallized the moment police entered the backyard, not merely when they asked about the satchel, applying the Grant framework with particular attention to the racialized context and private-property setting; the resulting s. 9 breach was serious and the evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).

The dissent would have found the detention began only when the officer directed inquiry at the appellant, and in any event would have admitted the evidence given the trial judge's unchallenged findings that the police acted in good faith with legitimate investigatory purposes and the seriousness of the offences.

The accused pleaded guilty to ten property and violent offences committed between February 8 and March 13, 2016, including theft of a motor vehicle, five robberies armed with a knife, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and administering a noxious substance.

The offences formed a crime spree in west-end Toronto.

The accused has an extensive criminal record with 21 prior sentencing events and 18.5 years of incarceration.

The court considered the accused's Aboriginal heritage (West Moberly First Nation), previously undisclosed due to fear of racism, along with systemic factors including childhood trauma, family violence, substance abuse, mental illness (multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia), and lack of support upon release from custody.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day in a reformatory facility plus three years probation, with credit for 27 months and one week of time served, resulting in an effective sentence of approximately four years and three months.