Grace Hyunju Choi

The appellant was originally charged with indictable offences and elected trial by judge and jury in the Superior Court of Justice.

On the trial date, the Crown re-elected to proceed by summary conviction, and the appellant pleaded guilty before the Superior Court judge.

The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal held that while the Crown had the authority to re-elect the mode of proceeding, the Superior Court of Justice is not a summary conviction court and lacked jurisdiction to take the guilty pleas and impose sentence.

The appeal was allowed, the sentence and pleas were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision that had overturned the respondent's conviction by applying the necessity defence.

The Court of Appeal granted leave and allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had correctly applied the test for necessity and made factual findings that the defence was not made out.

The summary conviction appeal court judge erred in law by failing to defer to those factual findings and effectively retrying the case.

The convictions were restored.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that overturned the accused's conviction for driving over 80.

The summary conviction appeal judge had found that an unexplained 28-minute delay between the first and second breath samples meant the samples were not taken 'as soon as practicable' under the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the law by looking at the whole chain of events and that the Crown is not required to provide a detailed explanation for every minute the accused is in custody.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal judge's decision setting aside a stay of proceedings for impaired driving charges.

The trial judge had originally granted the stay under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to delay.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding that the lower courts reasonably attributed a four-month adjournment to neutral delay rather than institutional delay.

The Court also agreed that the prejudice of additional legal fees did not override the public interest in a trial on the merits in a borderline delay case.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a psychiatric hospital with privileges to live in approved community accommodation.

He argued the Board erred by refusing disclosure of materials from his original NCR hearing and by failing to order an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had no jurisdiction to review the NCR hearing's procedural fairness.

The Court also held the Board's refusal to grant a discharge was reasonable, as evidence supported the finding that the appellant continued to pose a significant risk to the community and required hospital boundaries to maintain stability.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a mental health centre.

He argued the Board erred by failing to consider an absolute or conditional discharge, and by refusing a provision that would allow him to live in 24-hour supervised accommodation.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board did not err in refusing a discharge given the appellant's ongoing risk to the community.

However, the Court found the Board erred in law and misapprehended evidence by refusing the supervised accommodation provision, which was recommended for therapeutic reasons and to place the appellant on a waiting list.

Despite finding this error, the Court declined to alter the disposition due to fresh evidence and a pending hearing regarding a significant increase in the restriction of the appellant's liberty.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred by considering a bathroom video as similar fact evidence and by curtailing his testimony based on the collateral facts rule.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the excluded testimony was solely to impeach credibility and thus barred by the collateral facts rule.

The Court also held the video evidence was properly considered as circumstantial evidence of identity rather than prohibited bad character evidence.

The applicant, convicted of invitation to sexual touching of a child and sentenced to 24 months' incarceration, applied for bail pending her conviction and sentence appeals.

The court found that while the applicant would surrender into custody, the appeals were arguable but weak.

Given the serious nature of the offence, the extensive abuse of the child victim, and the breach of trust, the court concluded that public confidence in the administration of justice required the sentence to be enforced.

The application for judicial interim release was dismissed.

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 appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge improperly took judicial notice of male/female strength disparities, misapprehended evidence, and shifted the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) principles to assess credibility.

The Court noted that text messages and emails between the parties strongly corroborated the complainant's version of events and were tantamount to an acknowledgement of guilt.

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.