Grace Hyunju Choi

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder for driving a taxi from which a youth shot and killed the deceased.

The Crown's case relied on evidence from two witnesses: the front-seat passenger who testified that the appellant knew of the plan to kill the deceased, and the shooter himself who testified that the appellant had no knowledge of his plan.

The trial judge made numerous interventions during the shooter's testimony, expressing disparaging views about his credibility and reliability.

The trial judge also gave a Vetrovec instruction regarding the shooter's evidence, permitted re-examination of the passenger on prior consistent statements, and instructed the jury on the standard of proof.

The appellant appealed on five grounds.

The Crown appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board regarding Bartosz Gajewski, raising two grounds: (1) that a condition allowing indirectly supervised or unaccompanied entry into the community for up to seven days was unreasonable and did not protect public safety, and (2) that the Board's failure to include the victim's father (J.N.) in a 500-metre boundary condition was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the first ground, finding the Board's disposition reasonably supported by the evidence and noting that the Crown had not opposed the condition at the hearing.

The Court allowed the second ground in part, ordering that J.N. be included in the 500-metre boundary condition.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder in the death of Karina Neff.

He did not deny killing the deceased but claimed he lacked the mens rea for murder and was therefore guilty of manslaughter.

The appeal raised two issues: (1) whether the trial judge erred in admitting a video-recorded statement of a witness with a disability under section 715.2 of the Criminal Code when the witness could not confirm the truth of the statement from present recollection; and (2) whether the trial judge erred in dismissing an application for mistrial after the Crown made prejudicial remarks in closing address regarding the defence's expert evidence and the issue of intent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the adoption test under section 715.2 is the same as under section 715.1 and does not require present recollection, and that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in refusing a mistrial and addressing any prejudice through corrective jury instructions.