Gerald Joseph Brienza

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings entered after the trial judge found multiple Charter breaches, including a pat down search by a male officer that involved touching under the respondent’s breast area.

The Superior Court found that the search was brief, professional, and not unreasonable in the circumstances, and that there was no breach of sections 7, 8, or 12 of the Charter.

The stay was set aside and the matter remitted for sentencing.

The appellant, Jevane Fuller, appealed his convictions for multiple break and enters, assault, confinement, and robbery, and his total sentence of 15 years.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's assessment of a key witness's evidence and the admission of similar act evidence, both cross-count and from prior Toronto robberies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, and the appeal was allowed only to the extent of removing a victim fine surcharge, with the overall 15-year sentence upheld as fit.

Mr. Motuz appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition refusing an absolute discharge, arguing the Board misapprehended evidence regarding his history and current risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, supported by evidence of his mental illness, lack of insight, stated non-compliance with medication, and continued public safety risk, even if its reasons were brief.

The appellant, Romy Desir, appealed an adult sentence for multiple serious crimes, including three jewelry store robberies and aggravated assault, committed when he was 16 years old.

The sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of seven years.

The appellant argued the judge erred in imposing an adult sentence and failed to apply the principle of restraint.

The Court of Appeal upheld the adult sentence, finding no error in the rebuttal of the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness.

However, the court found that the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the principle of restraint, which dictates that a first penitentiary sentence for a youthful offender should be as short as possible.

Consequently, the global sentence was reduced from seven years to six years less credit for pre-sentence custody.

Robiel Negash, found not criminally responsible for robbery, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the ORB majority erred by applying a "possibility" rather than "probability" test for significant risk to public safety and failed to address inconsistencies in the treating psychiatrist's evidence.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the ORB for a fresh determination.

This is an appeal from a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board.

The original disposition became moot due to a subsequent detention order.

The appellant sought to incorporate the reasons from the new disposition into the current appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, declining to hear it without a full and current record pertaining to the most recent disposition.

The appellant, Shawn Orange, appealed his convictions for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The primary ground of appeal was that the transcript of the trial judge's oral reasons was uncertified due to alleged substantive changes by the judge.

The Court of Appeal rejected this, finding the transcript accurate and the judge's edits permissible within the scope allowed for trial judges.

The court also dismissed alternative grounds of appeal, finding the trial judge's factual and credibility findings amply supported by the evidence.

The appeal from convictions was dismissed.

The appeal from sentence was allowed by consent to subtract time spent on bail pending appeal from the driving prohibition.

The appellant, Alexander Sangster, appealed convictions for multiple firearm and assault offences, and a global sentence of seven years and seven months.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings regarding the reasonable expectation of privacy for a guest and the validity of consent to search, and finding no material misapprehension of evidence.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal based on fresh evidence demonstrating the appellant's significant rehabilitative progress while in custody and on bail, substituting the sentence to time served.

The applicant, Alexander Sangster, sought bail pending his conviction and sentence appeal for aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, firearm offences, and breach of recognizance.

He was sentenced to seven years and seven months.

The Crown opposed bail, arguing detention was necessary in the public interest.

The court granted bail, finding that the applicant had made substantial progress in managing his addiction, reducing public safety risk, and that the public interest in reviewability outweighed the enforceability interest, especially given the length of sentence already served and the arguable grounds of appeal.

The appellant, Thanh Tung Phan, appealed his conviction for first-degree murder.

The appeal raised two main grounds: an alleged error in the disposition of a Garofoli application concerning the judicial authorization for surveillance and tracking, and an error in admitting evidence of a history of violence between rival gangs (Chin Pac and Asian Assassinz) to establish motive.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Garofoli ruling, concluding that the authorizing justice had reasonable and probable grounds even after excising inaccurate information from the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court also found no error in admitting the gang evidence, determining its probative value for narrative, animus, and motive outweighed its prejudicial effect, especially given the trial judge's careful instructions and the manner of admission.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving causing death, stemming from a street racing incident where his co-accused lost control and killed a passenger.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to consider a mechanical failure of the co-accused's car as a reasonable inference for the accident and/or in her causation analysis, specifically claiming he had withdrawn from the race.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered and rejected the mechanical failure theory and correctly determined that the appellant had not withdrawn from the race, thus maintaining his causal responsibility for the death.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment followed by 3 years probation.

The case involved a single issue: whether the complainant consented to sexual intercourse.

The complainant testified she was asleep when the appellant penetrated her; the appellant claimed consent.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence, accepted the complainant's testimony, and found the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence on multiple grounds, including allegations of uneven scrutiny of evidence, failure to consider intellectual limitations, and misapprehension of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's analysis and that the sentence was well within the applicable range.

The appellant appealed his conviction for fraud and his sentence.

The trial judge had found the appellant guilty based on acceptance of witness evidence that the appellant was privy to discussions about the fraudulent nature of a bank transaction.

The trial judge also stated that, alternatively, guilt could have been established through the doctrine of wilful blindness.

The appellant argued that the trial judge's reliance on wilful blindness flawed her primary W.(D.) analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons, when read as a whole, did not establish guilt on the basis of wilful blindness alone, but rather on the basis of actual knowledge.

The court also noted that guilt could alternatively have been established through wilful blindness.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for sexual assault and other offences, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention pursuant to a hybrid order allowing transition from secure to general forensic unit with community living privileges.

The appellant had been on conditional discharge but was readmitted to hospital after missing his monthly antipsychotic medication injection.

Following rapid decompensation and aggressive behaviour requiring seclusion, the Board concluded a conditional discharge was inappropriate and ordered the hybrid detention.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision as reasonable, finding the appellant was not in a position to be in the community at the time of the hearing.

The accused was tried on a single count of breaching condition (iv) of his recognizance of bail, which required him not to be away from his place of residence except in the company of one of his sureties.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder and released on bail with strict conditions including electronic monitoring.

The issue was whether the accused was in breach when he left his surety in a parked car outside a school and entered the building alone to speak with his former basketball coach for approximately 5-10 minutes.

The court found the accused guilty, rejecting arguments that he was in compliance with the condition, that his misunderstanding constituted a mistake of fact rather than law, and that any breach was de minimis.

The accused was found guilty of four counts each of sexual interference and sexual assault of four nieces committed over a period of 3-4 years during their early and pre-teen years.

The offences involved multiple occasions of unwanted sexual touching, including digital penetration.

The court imposed a sentence of 3 years imprisonment, along with a SOIRA Order for 10 years, a weapons prohibition order for 10 years, and a DNA sample requirement.

The sentencing emphasized denunciation and deterrence principles, recognizing the breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victims, and the profound psychological harm caused.

The accused was charged with four counts of sexual interference and four counts of sexual assault against four sisters (his nieces) between January 1, 2002 and January 1, 2010.

The complainants testified that the accused engaged in multiple sexual violations including digital penetration while they slept over at his apartment during their early and pre-teen years.

The accused denied all allegations and testified that his bedroom was locked and he had limited contact with the complainants.

The court found the complainants' evidence credible and reliable, applying the appropriate standard for assessing child evidence.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as contrived and self-serving.

The accused was found guilty on all eight counts.

The accused, a school bus driver, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of a nine-year-old complainant.

The Crown's case rested solely on the testimony of the child, who alleged that the accused repeatedly touched his genitals over his clothing while driving the bus and referred to him as his girlfriend.

The accused denied all allegations, claiming the references to "mice" were to discourage children from eating on the bus and that any contact was innocuous.

A witness called by the defence, a fellow student who the complainant claimed witnessed the assaults, testified she saw no such contact.

Despite finding the complainant credible and rejecting the accused's denials as lacking credibility, the court found reasonable doubt existed based on the oddness of the allegations, the accused's presumption of innocence, and the conflicting witness evidence, resulting in an acquittal.