Grzegorz Marcin Dorsz

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose, appealed his convictions.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's credibility assessment of the complainant and the appellant, the interpretation of text messages, and the admissibility of fresh evidence regarding the appellant's post-conviction dementia diagnosis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on credibility and the interpretation of inculpatory text messages as admissions of sexual abuse.

The court also rejected the fresh evidence application, finding it lacked cogency and due diligence.

The applicant pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking in 2008.

Over 11 years later, he was arrested in the United States for immigration violations and sought an extension of time to appeal his Canadian conviction, arguing his plea was uninformed regarding immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the 11-year delay excessive, the proposed ground of appeal weak, and that the applicant failed to establish that the justice of the case required granting the extension.

The appellant was convicted of fraud and uttering forged documents after defrauding her employer by forging cheques and letters of direction.

She appealed her convictions, arguing the trial judge erred by refusing to grant a mistrial after the complainant made inflammatory comments, by dismissing her Corbett application to exclude her prior fraud convictions, and by delivering an unbalanced jury charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's handling of the mistrial application, his Corbett ruling, or his jury instructions.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a Summary Convictions Appeal Court decision dated August 15, 2016, which had dismissed an appeal from a conviction entered on October 21, 2014.

The Court of Appeal found that the proposed appeal did not raise a question of law of importance to the administration of justice and that the merits of the proposed appeal were not sufficiently strong to warrant granting leave to appeal.

Leave to appeal was refused.