Eun Woo Lee

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges including sexual exploitation and sexual assault.

The appeal argued that the trial judge erred by relying on stereotypical reasoning in assessing the complainant's credibility and by overemphasizing peripheral inconsistencies in the context of childhood abuse.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's repeated focus on why the complainant continued to engage with the respondent, despite knowing the risk of assault, constituted stereotypical reasoning, which is an error of law.

This error was deemed to have materially affected the verdict, as the trial judge's assessment of the respondent's credibility was inextricably linked to her flawed assessment of the complainant's credibility.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and child pornography, alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in attributing certain periods of delay to the defence and in inferring waiver.

Correcting these errors, the net delay exceeded the 18-month Jordan ceiling for provincial court cases, leading to a stay of proceedings.

The appellant, J.A., appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference following a judge-alone trial.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's and complainant's (S.M.) evidence, specifically regarding the implausibility of the appellant's film project as a ruse and the credibility of S.M. despite his criminal record and the timing of his disclosures.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's credibility findings, emphasizing the deference owed to trial judges in such assessments, and finding no error in the trial judge's reasoning or her reliance on common-sense inferences.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for robbery in 2005, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB).

The appeal concerned two conditions: the addition of "supervised accommodation" and the geographical scope of community living.

The appellant argued the "supervised accommodation" condition was unilaterally and unreasonably added without sufficient exploration, citing *Elster (Re)*.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this ground, distinguishing *Elster* on procedural fairness grounds, noting counsel had the opportunity to address the issue.

The appellant also argued the geographical scope was inconsistent with the Board's reasons, as the disposition limited community living to "Hamilton" post-transfer, while the Board intended "Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton".

The Court agreed with the appellant on this point, finding the Board and parties assumed GTA included Hamilton, and ordered the geographical scope for both pre- and post-transfer accommodation to be "the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton".

The appellant, Cory Joseph Marsh, appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm, arguing that the trial judge placed undue emphasis on the complainant's out-of-court demeanor evidence and provided insufficient reasons for conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered the complainant's out-of-court demeanor as admissible circumstantial evidence alongside other confirmatory evidence, and that the reasons for conviction, though brief, were sufficient for appellate review given the straightforward nature of the case and the agreed statement of facts.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for theft, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention order with community privileges, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Board found that an absolute discharge would pose a significant public safety threat due to likely medication non-compliance and substance abuse leading to decompensation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court rejected arguments that the Board failed to consider the appellant's improvements or misapprehended evidence regarding substance use, emphasizing that appellate review is limited to reasonableness and does not involve reweighing evidence.

Fresh evidence regarding recent decompensation reinforced the Board's conclusion.

The appellant, Krzysztof Harasiuk, appealed a 24-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to 10 offences, arguing the sentencing judge erred in rejecting a joint submission for "time served." The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to "time served." The Court found that the sentencing judge improperly applied a fitness test rather than the stringent "administration of justice into disrepute" standard required for departing from joint submissions.

It emphasized the importance of joint submissions for judicial efficiency and certainty, concluding that the proposed sentence, which amounted to 14 months with credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest, would not have brought the administration of justice into disrepute, especially considering the resource savings from the omnibus plea.