Grace Hyunju Choi

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility due to inconsistencies in her evidence, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge was alive to the inconsistencies and the fresh evidence was merely duplicative.

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

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter in the death of his intimate partner and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the jury's verdict, improperly relied on an excluded statement, and failed to consider mitigating factors and pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge's reasons lacked clarity on the use of the excluded statement and failed to apply the benefit of the doubt principle.

The Court allowed the appeal, factored in mitigating circumstances and pre-trial custody, and reduced the sentence to 7 years' imprisonment.

The Crown appealed the disposition imposed on a young person.

The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge gave the matter careful consideration and his assessment was worthy of considerable deference.

The Court also noted that the sentencing principles in the new youth justice legislation must inform their consideration.

The Court concluded that the sentence was not unfit and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of assault following an altercation with the complainant, during which the appellant claimed she acted in self-defence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by restricting cross-examination of the complainant regarding pending assault charges, misapprehending a witness's evidence, and improperly applying the doctrine of reasonable doubt to credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the restricted cross-examination prejudiced the appellant's self-defence claim and that the trial judge improperly resolved credibility before considering reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant sought leave to appeal sentence following a conviction for aggravated assault causing catastrophic and permanent brain injury to the victim.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge did not err by placing significant weight on the brutal nature of the attack, the callous abandonment of the victim without medical assistance, and the devastating consequences of the assault.

The court found that the sentencing judge also properly considered mitigating background factors, remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, and pre-trial custody.

A 9-year penitentiary sentence was held to be within the appropriate range and the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed after guilty pleas to two sexual assaults involving two sisters, one consisting of repeated abuse of a child over several years and the other a later sexual touching of the adult sister.

The Court of Appeal held the sentence was demonstrably unfit because the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to denunciation and deterrence, mischaracterized the conduct as out of character, and relied on unsupported hearsay opinions about risk.

A custodial disposition was required notwithstanding the historical nature of the principal offence, particularly given the later assault showing the misconduct was not isolated.

The appeal was allowed, the conditional sentence was set aside, a sentence of 14 months in the reformatory was imposed after accounting for time served on the conditional sentence, and a DNA order was directed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence demonstrating that trial counsel failed to call evidence that could have explained inaccuracies in the appellant's police statement.

The trial judge had used the statement to undermine the appellant's credibility.

The Court found that the ineffective assistance occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

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

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to consider the defence of intoxication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the intoxication defence as the appellant's conduct was clearly purposeful.

The court also held that the trial judge properly found the appellant's actions amounted to threats of violence under s. 343(a) of the Criminal Code, as they caused a reasonable apprehension of physical harm.

The respondent pled guilty to seven counts of robbery, dangerous driving, failing to stop for police, and possession of a stolen vehicle, receiving a total concurrent sentence of four years.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal found the total sentence manifestly inadequate given the respondent's extensive record, the number of offences, and the fact that he was on parole.

The Court varied the sentences for dangerous driving and failing to stop to be consecutive to the robbery sentences, resulting in a total sentence of six years, and imposed a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and his sentence of three and one-half years' imprisonment.

He argued that the trial judge's Vetrovec warning regarding an accomplice's testimony was deficient, that hearsay evidence was improperly admitted, and that the defence of intoxication should have been left to the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the Vetrovec warning adequate, no prejudice from the hearsay evidence, and no air of reality to the intoxication defence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly applied the mandatory minimum for robbery with a firearm and the sentence was not excessive.

The appellant appealed a jury conviction for sexual assault and argued, among other grounds, that the trial judge failed to properly investigate allegations that jurors had communicated with the officer-in-charge during trial.

The Court of Appeal held that both actual fairness and the appearance of fairness required a fuller inquiry into the allegation.

Because the witness was not permitted to explain an inconsistency and the officer should at least have been called to testify, the inquiry was incomplete and inconclusive.

The resulting appearance of unfairness required that the conviction be set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a speeding conviction based on a laser speed detection reading, arguing the Crown failed to prove the scientific reliability of the device absent expert evidence.

The court reviewed authorities concerning radar, speedometers, and newer laser technology, and held that although judicial notice of laser reliability had not yet been established, the Crown had adduced sufficient prima facie evidence of the particular unit's trustworthiness.

The combination of manufacturer-recommended testing on the date of the offence and an earlier comparison against an accurate radar unit by a qualified operator provided a sufficient circumstantial guarantee of reliability.

In the absence of contrary evidence, the conviction was upheld.

The appellant challenged a sexual offence conviction and sought leave to appeal a four-year penitentiary sentence.

The court held that extrinsic evidence to contradict the complainant about prior sexual conduct and alleged abuse was irrelevant to any live issue other than credibility and was therefore inadmissible under the collateral fact rule, apart from s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court also rejected arguments that the trial judge improperly compartmentalized the defence evidence, erred in relying on flight as consciousness of guilt, or mishandled credibility findings.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and although leave to appeal sentence was granted, the sentence appeal was also dismissed.