Heather Fregeau

The appellant, Edson Neto, appealed his conviction for sexual assault causing bodily harm.

The trial judge had convicted him based on the complainant's consistent testimony and powerful confirmatory medical evidence, despite concerns about the complainant's reliability on other charges (human trafficking, of which he was acquitted).

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge erred in finding the medical evidence confirmatory of the sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal found no error, concluding that the medical evidence (vaginal bleeding, lacerations, abrasions, swelling) was consistent with a violent sexual assault and inconsistent with the appellant's claim of menstruation, thereby confirming the complainant's account and disposing of the defence's alternative hypothesis.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Quinnton Drake, appealed an indeterminate dangerous offender sentence.

He had pleaded guilty to multiple violent offences, including robbery with a firearm, and had a lengthy criminal record.

At sentencing, he conceded dangerous offender criteria but sought a long-term supervision order instead of an indeterminate sentence, arguing the judge failed to adequately consider his remorse and willingness to participate in treatment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge correctly applied sentencing principles, including public protection as primary, and properly weighed the appellant's evidence against expert testimony indicating a very poor prognosis for treatment success and high risk of reoffending.

The appellant, S.B., appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the imposed sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

The majority found that the trial judge erred by failing to properly consider the appellant's evidence regarding the complainant's capacity to consent, constituting a W.(D.) error.

MacPherson J.A. also found an error in the rejection of the honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent defence.

The appellant, Shane Sureskumar, appealed his convictions for identity theft, attempted fraud over $5,000, fraud over $5,000, and fraudulent possession of credit card data, and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The convictions stemmed from his actions as a bank teller accessing client data and attempting/executing fraudulent transfers.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's findings on a s. 8 Charter breach regarding a search incident to arrest, the s. 24(2) exclusion of evidence, and the validity of a search warrant for his cell phone.

The appellant also argued the trial judge erred in not imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding a s. 8 breach but upholding the admission of evidence under s. 24(2) due to good faith and discoverability, and affirming the cell phone warrant.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed, as the trial judge properly considered and rejected a conditional sentence, weighing aggravating factors (breach of trust, quantum, sophistication, greed) against modest mitigating factors (youthful first-time offender, no loss).

The appellant, C.L., appealed his sentence of six years and six months' imprisonment for violent sexual assault and other related offences.

The appeal raised two grounds: that the trial judge erred in tempering the mitigating factor of his guilty plea with a lack of insight, and that the trial judge erred in her analysis of enhanced credit for pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the sentencing judge's approach to either the guilty plea's mitigation or the pre-trial custody credit.

The Hospital appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to grant Jeffrey Smith an absolute discharge, arguing it was unreasonable given his history of violence, substance abuse, and limited insight into his mental illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's decision, finding it was reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly given the high standard for finding a "significant threat" and the deference owed to the Board's expertise.

Dellen Millard and Mark Smich appealed their first-degree murder convictions for the death of Timothy Bosma.

The appeals raised issues concerning the admissibility and jury instructions on bad character evidence in a joint trial with antagonistic defences, jury instructions on planning and deliberation, and the propriety of closing addresses by the Crown and co-counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's decisions regarding evidence admissibility, jury instructions, or the sufficiency of corrective instructions for closing arguments.

The appellant, Dellen Millard, appealed his conviction for the murder of Wayne Millard and his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no merit in his arguments regarding the unreasonableness of the verdict, including the trial judge's reliance on a dangerous witness, the sufficiency of alibi evidence, and cellphone findings.

The court upheld the trial judge's findings, emphasizing the overwhelming evidence supporting the conviction.

The sentence appeal was granted, and the s. 745.51 order was quashed, though the sentence otherwise remained intact.

This is an appeal from a conviction for sexual assault, sexual touching, and invitation to sexual touching.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to address inadvertent tainting of the complainant's evidence and by making a finding of no motive to fabricate without evidentiary foundation, thereby reversing the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the inadvertent tainting argument given the nature of the allegations, and interpreting the trial judge's finding of "no motive to fabricate" as a rejection of the defence's assertion of animus, rather than an improper bolstering of credibility or reversal of the burden of proof.

The appellant, J.G., appealed his conviction for sexual interference offences related to his stepdaughter, arguing the trial judge made inconsistent findings regarding reliability, conflated reliability and credibility, and misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to accept the complainant's evidence on the core issue of the offence, despite minor inconsistencies regarding peripheral details, especially given the complainant's age at the time of the events.

The applicant, M.S., sought bail pending appeal after being convicted of five counts of sexual interference and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.

The application was dismissed as the court found that while the appeal was not frivolous and the applicant would surrender, the public confidence component under s. 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code was engaged due to the serious nature of the child sexual abuse offences and the weak grounds of appeal.

Jeffery Smith, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault and uttering threats, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant public safety threat.

The ORB, and subsequently the Court of Appeal, found that despite a treating psychiatrist's opinion, other expert opinions and the appellant's history of non-compliance, lack of insight, and recent concerning behaviour (stunt driving and dishonesty) indicated a continued significant threat to public safety without ORB oversight.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conditional discharge.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching, sought bail pending appeal.

This was a renewed application after a previous denial.

The Crown conceded the appeal was not frivolous and the appellant was not a flight risk, but opposed bail on public interest grounds, specifically public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court found that while public safety concerns could be mitigated by strict conditions, the high enforceability interest due to the serious nature of the offences and the appellant's lack of insight into the harm caused by prior breaches outweighed the reviewability interest, which was deemed low despite arguable grounds of appeal.

The motion for bail pending appeal was denied.

Mr. Ojaghi appealed a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board, arguing it was unreasonable and seeking a conditional discharge.

He also challenged the Board's removal of a travel provision from his previous disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding it reasonable and necessary for public safety given the applicant's non-compliance with medication.

However, the court found that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by removing the travel provision without notice or inviting submissions, and therefore reinstated that provision.