Ines Gavran

The accused, G.M., charged with sexual assault and extortion, applied for his seven-day trial to be conducted remotely from Toronto, citing cost savings and his right to counsel of choice.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing it was late, premature, and that in-person trials are the norm.

The court, applying sections 715.21 and 715.23 of the Criminal Code, dismissed the application.

The judge emphasized the presumption of in-person trials, the lack of compelling reasons beyond counsel's convenience, and the practical difficulties and potential jurisdictional issues associated with remote criminal trials, especially for serious and lengthy matters.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to modify a no-contact condition, seeking limited access to his children.

The applicant faced serious charges including sexual assault, assault with a weapon, and uttering death threats, with some allegations involving the children.

The court dismissed the application as premature, holding that the family court is the appropriate forum to determine child access based on the best interests of the children.

The court noted that a future family court order granting access could constitute a material change in circumstances justifying a renewed bail review application.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual assault causing bodily harm and threatening death arising from a violent sexual assault by a male roommate against a young woman in her bedroom and kitchen.

The defence advanced cannabis intoxication and major depressive disorder as mitigating factors through social work and psychiatric opinion evidence, but the court rejected those positions because the offender's self-reporting was inconsistent and unreliable.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in light of the violent invasion of the victim's living space, bodily harm to her wrists, threats to kill her into silence, and lasting psychological harm.

A suspended sentence or conditional sentence was held to be manifestly unfit, and a global penitentiary sentence of three years was imposed with ancillary DNA, firearm prohibition, SOIRA, and no-contact orders.

The applicant, convicted of sexual assault, sought court-appointed counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code to assist with his application for leave to appeal and subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Legal Aid Ontario had denied coverage due to insufficient merit.

The Crown opposed the appointment of counsel and requested that the court decide and refuse the leave application at the motion hearing.

The court found the applicant lacked sufficient means but was not persuaded that appointing counsel was in the interests of justice, noting the issues were relatively straightforward.

The court also declined the Crown's request to decide the leave application prematurely, adhering to the court's Criminal Appeals Practice Direction.

Both the applicant's motion for counsel and the Crown's request were dismissed.

The two accused brothers were convicted of aggravated assault after brutally attacking a defenceless victim by kicking him in the head multiple times.

The Crown sought a 30-month penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought conditional sentences.

The court considered the extreme violence of the attack, the mitigating factors including the offenders' lack of significant criminal records, their employment, and remorse, as well as the collateral immigration consequences for one offender and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prison conditions.

The court sentenced both offenders to 15 months in custody followed by two years of probation.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

He appealed the conviction, alleging that the trial judge made several errors, including failing to properly appreciate material evidence, applying uneven scrutiny to defence evidence, failing to address credibility issues, misapplying reasonable doubt principles, relying on inadmissible material, and providing inadequate reasons.

The appeal court found that the trial judge properly applied the W.D. test, made findings of fact contrary to the appellant's evidence, and sufficiently articulated how credibility concerns and contradictory evidence were resolved.

The trial judge's disbelief of the appellant's evidence, combined with the accepted evidence of the complainant, led to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed.

J.S. brought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on reverse onus charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and firearm offences.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including new sureties (father and godfather) addressing previous concerns about the mother's health, and the elevated risk posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in detention facilities.

Considering the proposed strict house arrest plan, the applicant's lack of criminal record, and the overall circumstances, the court determined that release would not undermine public confidence in the administration of justice on the tertiary ground.

The bail review was granted, and J.S. was released on a $15,000 surety recognizance with strict conditions.

The applicant, convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, sought bail pending appeal.

The application was based on grounds including judicial bias, misapprehension of evidence, and an unfit sentence.

The court applied the three-part test from s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, finding that the appeal grounds were not frivolous, there was no flight risk, and detention was not necessary in the public interest, particularly given the significant portion of the sentence that would be served before the appeal could be heard.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that the "Me Too" movement altered the balance in favour of enforceability.

The defendant was tried on multiple counts relating to two separate incidents: alleged failure to comply with a recognizance by communicating with a complainant, theft of her telephone, and assault between August 17-23, 2016, and similar charges on September 2, 2016, including forcible confinement.

The court found the defendant guilty of both counts of failure to comply with the recognizance but acquitted him of the assault, theft, and forcible confinement charges.

The court determined that while the complainant's evidence established the defendant's breach of bail conditions, it did not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt for the remaining charges.