Gregory Alexander Tomes Furmaniuk

The appellant, J.A., appealed his convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in admitting the appellant's police statement as voluntary evidence.

The appellant contended that the trial judge, after finding an inducement, failed to adequately consider all oppressive circumstances in determining if his will was overborne.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge correctly applied the legal test for voluntariness and considered all relevant circumstances, and that the finding of voluntariness was entitled to significant appellate deference.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and aggravated assault, and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The appellant argued that the trial judge improperly inferred guilt from disbelief of his testimony and that the robbery conviction was unreasonable, contending the theft was complete before the violence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's reasoning regarding the rejection of testimony or the continuous transaction for robbery.

The court also found the custodial sentence imposed was fit.

The appellant, a registered massage therapist, appealed his conviction on two counts of sexual assault.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's assessment of complainant credibility in the absence of expert evidence and the sufficiency of reasons for rejecting the appellant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that the complainants' reactions were psychologically normal for sexual assault victims and that the reasons for conviction, based on the strength of the Crown's evidence and similar fact evidence, were sufficient.

The appellant, M.M., appealed his conviction for sexual interference and sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing his application for a mistrial based on a reasonable apprehension of bias.

This apprehension arose from an ex parte communication between the trial judge and a justice of the peace who was related to the appellant's ex-spouse and children.

The Court of Appeal found that while the justice of the peace's conduct was a lapse of judgment, the trial judge took appropriate remedial steps by immediately putting the encounter on record, hearing submissions, and explaining his impartiality.

The Court concluded that a reasonable observer would not find the trial judge biased, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Timothy Massey-Patel, appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable, that she erred in assessing witness evidence, and that she relied on impermissible stereotypes and applied uneven scrutiny.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were reasonable, her assessment of evidence sound, and that she did not rely on stereotypes or apply uneven scrutiny.

The court affirmed that a reasonable doubt on one aspect of the alleged assault (penile penetration) did not invalidate the conviction for other sexual touching and digital penetration, as the doubt arose from reliability concerns, not credibility of the complainant.

The appellant, G.B., appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against his granddaughter.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence, including his attempt to manufacture a motive for the complainant to lie (a car loan dispute).

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's evidence or her finding that the complainant had no motive to fabricate, though it cautioned against relying on an "apparent lack of motive" to bolster credibility.

The court applied the curative proviso, finding that any error did not overwhelm the trial judge's careful reasons.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Jeffrey Shuman, appealed his 15-year global sentence for seven counts of robbery with a firearm, arguing that the sentence was demonstrably unfit and that the sentencing judge's reasons were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit given the serious nature of the offences, the paramountcy of deterrence and denunciation, and the sentencing judge's adequate reasons which considered aggravating and mitigating factors and was clearly alive to the totality principle.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were deficient, specifically in analyzing evidence, addressing a potential motive to fabricate, and interpreting a text message.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons adequately explained the verdict, sufficiently exposed the reasoning for appellate review, and properly applied the principles of credibility assessment, including the R. v. W.(D.) framework.

The court affirmed that a trial judge is not required to address every argument explicitly if the reasons as a whole are cogent.

The appellant, Brandon Omardeen, appealed his convictions for multiple firearm-related offences and breach charges, as well as his sentence.

He challenged the trial judge's credibility and reliability findings, the identification evidence, and the finding of consciousness of guilt based on his post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings on identification, the absence of gunshot residue, or the inference of consciousness of guilt.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was found to be fit given the extensive aggravating factors and the appellant's criminal record.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed for weapon and drug trafficking offences, arguing that the conditional sentence for possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking was illegal, the overall sentence was demonstrably unfit, and the sentencing judge overemphasized the respondent's rehabilitative prospects.

The Court of Appeal found that the conditional sentence for cocaine trafficking was an error of law but determined it did not impact the overall sentence.

The court upheld the original sentence length, deferring to the sentencing judge's discretion and her findings regarding the respondent's significant rehabilitative efforts.

The appeal was granted only to correct the illegality by reallocating presentence custody to specific counts, without altering the global sentence length.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition regarding a detention order for the appellant.

The appellant challenged two aspects of the Board's decision: (1) whether the Board erred in making a detention order rather than granting some form of discharge, and (2) whether the Board erred in not including a term allowing the appellant to live in community accommodation approved by the hospital.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order but found the Board had misapprehended the hospital's evidence regarding a community living provision and failed to consider that evidence.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of inserting a clause permitting community living in hospital-approved accommodation into the detention order.