Grace Hyunju Choi

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from a Superior Court of Justice decision that allowed the Crown's appeal and remitted the matter for a new trial.

The applicant had originally been acquitted of assaulting a peace officer and breach of recognizance.

The summary conviction appeal judge found a misapprehension of evidence central to the trial decision.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, finding no exceptional circumstances or matters of general importance to justify a second-level appeal.

The self-represented appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error, unreasonableness, or miscarriage of justice in the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat.

The court noted that the appellant's request for an outpatient assessment could be raised at her next annual review.

The appellant hospital appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered the transfer of a mental disorder detainee to another hospital but failed to provide for interim custody or privileges pending the transfer.

Although the detainee was eventually transferred, rendering the appeal moot, the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to hear the case because the issue is evasive of review and likely to recur.

The Court held that the Board's failure to include interim custody and privilege terms was unreasonable and legally wrong, as it resulted in a disposition that was not the least onerous and least restrictive to the detainee.

The Crown appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that granted the respondent limited community access for special purposes.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's order was supported by evidence from the treating psychiatrist and was not unreasonable.

The Court allowed the appeal only to the extent of adding uncontested conditions prohibiting the respondent from possessing intoxicants and weapons, which had been inadvertently omitted from the Board's order.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him in a medium security facility, seeking a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant suffers from a serious psychiatric disorder, is resistant to treatment, lacks insight, and represents a serious risk to public safety if untreated.

The Board's order was held to be reasonable.

The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery and failure to comply with a youth sentence.

The sentencing judge accepted a joint submission that included a one-day jail sentence to allow the appellant to collect his belongings.

However, this inadvertently triggered s. 743.5(1) of the Criminal Code, converting his remaining youth sentence into an adult sentence.

On appeal, with the Crown's consent, the court varied the sentence to time served to reflect the parties' original intent.

The court also corrected the weapons prohibition to a lifetime ban under s. 109(3) due to the appellant's prior robbery convictions.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a minimum secure unit.

He argued the Board erred by admitting reports referencing stayed charges, that the six-month delay in issuing reasons was unreasonable, and that the refusal to grant a conditional discharge was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reliance on risk assessment tools appropriate, declining to grant a remedy for the delayed reasons despite urging promptness, and upholding the detention order as necessary for public protection given the appellant's lack of insight and history of non-compliance.

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 appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

On the comment of all parties, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board erred in rejecting his request for a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board was aware of the request and reasonably determined that it was premature to reduce the restrictions on the appellant given his present circumstances.

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.