Grace Hyunju Choi

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility and in refusing to allow him to show his arms to demonstrate he had no tattoos.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge fully appreciated the evidence, acknowledged the complainant's lies, and gave adequate reasons for accepting her testimony.

The court also held that the ruling on demonstrative evidence was a matter of the trial judge's discretion.

The appellant was convicted of prostitution-related offences, including living off the avails of a person under eighteen, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.

On his sentence appeal, the appellant sought to challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence for the first time.

The Crown objected.

The Court of Appeal held that an appellate court should generally decline to hear a new constitutional argument if it requires resolving contentious evidentiary disputes that were not vetted at trial.

The court directed that the appellant could not raise the constitutional issue on his sentence appeal.

The appellant was found guilty by a jury of criminal harassment and invitation to sexual touching.

Prior to sentencing, psychiatric assessments suggested he may have been not criminally responsible due to mental disorder (NCRMD) at the time of the offences.

The trial judge ruled he lacked jurisdiction to enter an NCRMD verdict after the jury was discharged.

On appeal, the appellant introduced fresh psychiatric evidence.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence under the Palmer test, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial, finding that the fresh evidence could reasonably be expected to have affected the result.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 20, 2005.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as moot, referring to endorsement C46302.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant failed to appear and sought an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal declined to decide on the adjournment request, finding that the appeal was moot because the appellant was already subject to a subsequent detention order issued by the Board.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of child pornography, sexual interference, and sexual assault, as well as his sentence.

He argued that the destruction of a videotaped interview prejudiced his right to make full answer and defence, and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to seek a stay, failing to request counselling records, and failing to advance a fabrication defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no prejudice from the lost videotape, no merit to the ineffective assistance claims, and no error in the trial judge's consideration of evidence or the sentence imposed.

The appellants were convicted of offences under the Safe Streets Act and the Highway Traffic Act for squeegeeing and soliciting money from drivers of stopped vehicles on roadways.

They appealed their convictions, arguing that the legislation was unconstitutional because it was ultra vires the province as criminal law, and that it violated their rights under sections 2(b), 7, and 15 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the legislation was a valid exercise of provincial power to regulate roadways.

While the provisions infringed freedom of expression under section 2(b), the infringement was justified under section 1.

The court also found no violations of sections 7 or 15.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible and detained at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital for 28 years, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention.

The appellant had a long-standing practice of refusing to attend Board hearings, refusing counsel, and refusing all psychiatric treatment.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board erred in law by failing to recognize its inquisitorial role under the Criminal Code.

Given the treatment impasse, the Board had a duty to consider making further inquiries rather than simply recapitulating the static situation.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing ordered, with the Court noting the Board has jurisdiction to appoint amicus curiae to assist in such cases.

The Ontario Review Board brought a motion for leave to intervene in an appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion on several conditions, including that the Board take no position on the merits of the appeal or the specific allegations of bias, but rather explain its general practices regarding the assignment of panel members.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board's disposition but noted a legitimate concern regarding whether the appellant might be appropriately placed in a medium security facility other than Brockville.

The Court asked the Board to consider this question at the appellant's upcoming hearing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed her sentence for conspiracy to rob her employer.

She argued the sentencing judge erred by considering evidence that she had previously provided information to her boyfriend enabling him to commit a serious robbery against the same victim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the earlier events were part of the circumstances of the conspiracy under section 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, and the sentence was not manifestly unreasonable.

The appellant, appearing in person, requested an adjournment of his appeal due to an administrative mix-up where amicus curiae was appointed instead of legal counsel.

The appellant had just received the factums and did not have the appeal book.

The Court of Appeal granted the adjournment and ordered the appointment of counsel for the appellant pursuant to the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and assault with a weapon.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the appeal but failed to provide reasons capable of review.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged this error of law but reviewed the trial record directly.

The Court found that the trial judge properly assessed credibility, applied the correct standard of proof, and considered the evidence as a whole.

The verdicts were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences against a minor, arguing the trial judge erred in his jury charge regarding inconsistencies in the child complainant's testimony and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's charge was fair and adequately addressed the assessment of child testimony and inconsistencies.

The Court also held the verdict was not unreasonable, as there was ample evidence to support it and the inconsistency did not relate to an essential element of the offences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a Superior Court decision upholding a preliminary inquiry judge's discharge of the respondent on a charge of aggravated assault.

The Court of Appeal found that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by presuming the children's evidence was true, thereby precluding consideration of other evidence, and by failing to consider the accused's post-offence conduct.

The appeal was allowed, the discharge set aside, and the matter remitted for committal.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing errors in the summary conviction appeal court judge's treatment of the defences of consent and self-defence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in law, noting the significant size disparity between the appellant and the complainant, and concluding there was no air of reality to the suggestion of a consensual fight.

The court also found no basis for self-defence, which had been expressly disavowed at trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing errors in the summary conviction appeal court judge's treatment of the defences of consent and self-defence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in law, agreeing that there was no air of reality to the suggestion that the complainant consented to a fight given the size disparity and circumstances.

The court also found no basis for self-defence, noting trial counsel had expressly disavowed it.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision that overturned the respondent's conviction.

The trial judge had found that the respondent had no realistic opportunity to consult counsel before a roadside screening device arrived, based on the late hour and the short, anticipated delay of five to ten minutes.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court substituted its own findings of fact, concluding the respondent had a cell phone and faced an unknown delay.

The Court of Appeal held that the Summary Conviction Appeal Court erred in substituting its findings, as the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored.

The appellant appealed his criminal conviction, arguing the trial judge provided inadequate reasons and improperly assessed witness credibility.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge's reasons were conclusory, failed to properly scrutinize the unconfirmed evidence of the main Crown witness, misapprehended evidence regarding an exchange, and improperly drew an adverse inference from a neutral fact.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board's disposition, noting it responded to the alternative section requested by the appellant and was supported by the evidence.

Although the appellant refused to cooperate with some conditions, he had been an exemplary patient in the hospital setting.

The appeal was dismissed, with the expectation that the Board would consider all relevant dispositions at the next annual review.