Grace Choi

Appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from an Ontario Review Board disposition continuing detention subject to conditions.

The appellant argued that the Board failed to address two Charter applications, misapprehended the evidence, and erred in refusing a conditional discharge.

The court held that the Charter applications were unsupported by particulars or sought remedies beyond the Board's jurisdiction or irrelevant to the annual review, found no material misapprehension of evidence, and concluded that continued detention was adequately supported by the Board's reasons.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and forcible confinement in a domestic setting.

The complainant, his fiancée, deliberately failed to attend court for the trial.

The trial judge admitted her videotaped K.G.B. statement as the main evidence against the appellant.

On appeal, the appellant argued he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine her.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the statement met the necessity and reliability requirements for admitting hearsay evidence.

The appellants were convicted of breaking into a motel and robbing the occupants.

They appealed their convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding in-dock identification evidence, the use of a nickname, Vetrovec warnings for unsavoury witnesses, and a prior inconsistent statement.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the jury charge, noting that the instructions adequately warned of the dangers of in-dock identification and correctly applied the law on corroboration between Vetrovec witnesses.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for public mischief, arguing that the false allegations he made to the Children's Aid Society did not constitute a 'report' under s. 140(1)(c) of the Criminal Code because they were not made directly to a police officer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that a report does not need to be made directly to the police.

The court also found ample evidence that the appellant intended to mislead the police and upheld the trial judge's instruction on the burden of proof.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for multiple sexual offences against four family members.

At trial, after the first complainant testified, the appellant re-elected trial by judge alone and agreed to a procedure where the Crown read in the facts and the appellant did not contest them, leading to findings of guilt.

On appeal, the appellant argued this procedure was an illegal 'nolo contendere' plea and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the procedure did not cause a miscarriage of justice as the appellant was fully informed and voluntarily participated.

The ineffective assistance claim was also rejected.

The five-year penitentiary sentence was upheld as fit given the serial nature of the abuse and the breach of trust.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault with a weapon after attacking his adoptive parents.

Following psychiatric assessments, the trial judge found the appellant not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder, likely schizophrenia.

The appellant appealed the NCR verdict, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel's strategy was professional and caused no prejudice, and that the NCR verdict was well-supported by the evidence of the appellant's mental decline, bizarre behaviour, and expert testimony.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for assault-related offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal regarding the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons, finding the trial judge gave a detailed explanation for his credibility findings.

However, based on fresh evidence and a Crown concession, the Court substituted a conviction for assault simpliciter on count six instead of assault causing bodily harm.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found the trial judge erred by imposing a sentence of two years less a day—significantly higher than the Crown's 90-day proposal—without allowing counsel to make submissions.

The global sentence was reduced to 18 months.

The appellant, who became a quadriplegic following the incidents, appealed his convictions for five counts of sexual assault against a minor and his 30-month sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors in the jury charge and concluding the verdict was not unreasonable.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that incarceration was not necessary given the extraordinary circumstances of the appellant's severe physical infirmity, and reduced the sentence to two years less a day to be served conditionally.

The appellant appealed his convictions for uttering a threat to cause death, criminal harassment, and breach of probation.

He argued that the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding the defence theory, the independence of confirmatory evidence, the examples of confirmatory evidence provided, and the instruction on post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's instructions to the jury.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, robbery, break and enter, and related offences, as well as his sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on identification evidence and admitting hearsay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that any alleged errors were inconsequential given the overwhelming DNA evidence placing the appellant at the scene of the home invasion.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was fit and within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board misunderstood the joint submission of the parties and inadvertently imposed a more restrictive condition than intended.

The appeal was allowed to correct the error by substituting the jointly submitted condition regarding community accommodations.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial and the hearing judge issued a treatment order under s. 672.58 of the Criminal Code, directing that he be taken forthwith to a designated hospital.

The hospital appealed, arguing that it had not consented to the order as required by s. 672.62 because no bed was immediately available.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the hospital's consent is a mandatory precondition that includes having the capacity to safely admit the patient.

The Court also held that the consent requirement does not violate s. 7 of the Charter, as it accords with the principles of fundamental justice by ensuring treatment orders are executed safely and balancing the needs of the accused with broader societal and medical realities.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained his detention with privileges for supervised community accommodation.

The appellant argued the Board misapprehended evidence, failed to consider a conditional discharge, and erred by not ordering an independent psychiatric assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusions reasonable, noting that a conditional discharge was inappropriate given the need for supervised accommodation, and agreeing that an independent assessment was unnecessary.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that was more restrictive of his liberty than previous orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding a solid evidentiary basis for the disposition and noting the Board's intention to maintain oversight while allowing for the possibility of an earlier hearing if progress was made.

The appellant was convicted of robbery of a convenience store as a party to the offence.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and wrongly used his utterances to police to draw an inference of guilt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of essential evidence and concluding the circumstantial evidence of guilt was overwhelming.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and breach of probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding sexual interference, finding the trial judge's reasons adequate and untainted by references to other incidents.

The court allowed the appeal regarding breach of probation, entering an acquittal because the trial judge failed to make a discrete finding concerning the date of the offences.

On consent, the court entered a stay on the sexual assault conviction.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to consider evidence corroborating his claim that he could not communicate in English.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge expressly referred to the evidence but accepted the police officers' evidence as equally credible, concluding the appellant had not met his burden.

The young person appealed her conviction and sentence for robbery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's use of after-the-fact conduct evidence.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed.

The trial judge had imposed a sentence exceeding the recommendations of both the Crown and defence.

The Court found the sentence excessive and reduced it to time served (two-and-a-half months) while maintaining the $350 restitution order.

The appellant appealed his sentence.

The Crown agreed the sentence should be reduced by 11 days for time served.

The Court of Appeal noted the trial judge failed to consider the appellant's positive steps toward rehabilitation.

Leave to appeal was granted, and the sentence was varied from six months consecutive to six months concurrent, with an 11-day reduction for time served.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible (NCR), appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention at a psychiatric hospital.

The amicus curiae argued the Board erred by failing to appoint counsel for the unrepresented appellant under s. 672.5(8) of the Criminal Code or by failing to provide adequate assistance during the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly considered whether the interests of justice required appointing counsel and reasonably concluded the appellant could participate fairly.

The Court also held that the Board's decision to continue the appellant's detention was reasonable and supported by evidence of his lack of insight, substance abuse history, and risk of violence.