Jacob Ezra Sone

This is an appeal from a conviction for sexual assault.

The appellant raised four grounds: improper use of a prior consistent statement to bolster credibility, error in reliability analysis regarding the complainant's detailed description, failure to adequately address the physical improbability of the touching as described, and misapprehension of evidence regarding the touched breast.

The court dismissed all grounds, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility and reliability, proper use of contemporaneous demeanor evidence, and a thorough consideration of the physical mechanics of the assault.

The conviction was upheld.

The Crown applied under Section 521 of the Criminal Code to review the respondent's bail release, seeking detention or surety supervision.

The application for detention or surety was denied, but the court found significant procedural errors in the original bail hearing where the Justice of the Peace unduly restricted the Crown's presentation of evidence.

The court emphasized the balance between efficiency and procedural fairness in bail hearings, noting that expedition should not compromise the Crown's right to be heard, especially regarding evidence pertinent to public safety.

This decision provides reasons for an inquiry into an incident where the accused, David Baichoo, appeared in a security gown, naked underneath, on the first day of his first-degree murder trial.

The incident, which led to the loss of a trial day and compromised the dignity of the proceedings, was attributed to the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC).

The court found that the TSDC's reliance on unreliable body scans for contraband and the indifference of staff, particularly Sgt. Polanski, led to the deplorable situation.

Despite the subsequent abandonment of the defence's application for costs, the court issued these reasons to highlight systemic failures in the treatment of accused persons and to ensure accountability.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of foot impression evidence in a first-degree murder trial.

The Crown sought to introduce expert testimony and circumstantial evidence linking the accused's shoes to an impression found at the crime scene.

The defence objected, challenging the expert's qualifications and the relevance of the evidence due to perceived weaknesses in the chain of reasoning and lack of uniqueness of the shoe tread.

The court found the forensic identification officer qualified as an expert in foot impression analysis and deemed the evidence sufficiently necessary and relevant, ruling it admissible.

The appellant appealed his convictions for theft of a pickup truck, dangerous driving, failing to stop for police, and mischief.

The central issue was who was driving the stolen truck during a high-speed chase on Highway 401.

The appellant claimed his companion, Mr. Gilbert, was driving, while Mr. Gilbert testified the appellant was the driver.

The trial judge accepted Mr. Gilbert's evidence as reliable and rejected the appellant's testimony as inconsistent and tailored.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no misapprehension of evidence or uneven scrutiny by the trial judge, and that the conclusions were reasonably drawn from the evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, assault with a weapon, sexual interference, three counts of sexual assault, uttering a threat, two counts of failing to comply with a recognisance, and failure to comply with probation.

The charges stemmed from allegations made by three of the appellant's children, all of whom had cognitive deficits.

The trial judge convicted the appellant of all charges except one count of assault causing bodily harm.

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of material inconsistencies in witness evidence and inadequate reasons, and also sought leave to appeal his sentence of 10 years' incarceration less 34 months of pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, granted leave to appeal sentence, and allowed the sentence appeal to provide additional credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder in the death of Edward Wilson following a two-month trial in Kenora, Ontario.

The appellant appealed his conviction on six grounds, including challenges to the trial judge's treatment of evidence from the Minaki boys (who assaulted the victim), the admission of hearsay evidence from the co-accused turned Crown witness, jury instructions on intoxication and provocation, the failure to provide a W.(D.) instruction, the admission of police opinion evidence regarding the appellant's veracity, and the cumulative effect of the trial judge's interventions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

The appellant sought bail pending appeal of his conviction for aggravated assault.

The trial judge found that the appellant stabbed the victim with a steak knife during a party while very intoxicated.

The Crown conceded the appellant was not a flight risk.

The motions judge dismissed the bail application, finding that detention was necessary in the public interest under section 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The grounds for appeal were not strong, and the seriousness of the offence, combined with the appellant's lengthy criminal record including violent convictions, favoured detention.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and using an imitation firearm in the commission of that offence.

He was sentenced to six months' incarceration for robbery and 12 months' consecutive for the firearm offence.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the convictions on four grounds: the admissibility of dog tracking evidence, the trial judge's use of post-offence conduct evidence (flight from police), the trial judge's treatment of evidence regarding the appellant's intoxication, and a misapprehension of evidence regarding the appellant's location.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the convictions.

The appellant appealed her conviction for trafficking heroin and possession of the proceeds of crime, as well as her sentence of 26 months imprisonment.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's findings on three grounds: that the Crown had not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, that the trial judge engaged in impermissible speculation rather than permissible inference, and that the trial judge failed to consider contrary evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge's inferences from circumstantial evidence, including intercepted communications, the appellant's brief presence in the target's vehicle, and the possession of cash and heroin, were reasonable and not speculative.

The appeal from sentence was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference arising from a single incident involving a six-year-old complainant.

The trial judge stayed the sexual assault conviction under the Kienapple principle and sentenced the appellant to 15 months in custody followed by one year probation.

On appeal, the Court found that the trial judge erred by using evidence of the complainant's emotional and psychological problems as a teenager to bolster the reliability of her testimony regarding the assault.

The trial judge improperly relied on the absence of alternative explanations for the complainant's behaviour and engaged in circular reasoning by using the complainant's acceptance of the causal link between the assault and her subsequent problems to support the reliability of her evidence of the assault itself.

The Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

An appeal from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 24, 2017.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for robbery in 2010, challenged the Board's decision to impose a detention disposition rather than a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued that a conditional discharge with treatment conditions could manage his risk as effectively as detention.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition, finding that the Board correctly applied the legal test and that its conclusion was reasonable given the appellant's recent deterioration, non-compliance with conditions, medication non-adherence, and the limitations of the Mental Health Act in managing his risk.

Garth Bent was found guilty of indecent assault of a male person, committed in 1982 when the victim was 13 and Bent was 22, acting as a camp leader.

This sentencing decision followed a trial, and Bent had a prior record from 2009/2010 for similar historical sexual offences for which he received a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors such as breach of trust and victim vulnerability, and mitigating factors including Bent's self-initiated withdrawal from youth work, voluntary counselling, and apologies to other known victims, as well as his crime-free life for 35 years.

The court found that specific deterrence and rehabilitation were not relevant, and imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, a life-term SOIRA order, and declined a weapons prohibition order by applying the most lenient statutory regime available between the time of the offence and sentencing.

The accused, Iqbal Singh, was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and unlawful confinement.

The court entered a judicial stay of proceedings for the aggravated assault and unlawful confinement charges, finding them subsumed by the attempted murder convictions.

The sentencing addressed the first-degree murder and two attempted murders.

The court considered the facts of the offences, the accused's circumstances, and extensive victim impact statements.

A joint submission on sentencing for the attempted murders was accepted, leading to a life sentence for murder and consecutive sentences for attempted murders.

This ruling addresses the admissibility and use of association evidence as circumstantial evidence of identity in a multi-accused criminal trial involving charges of theft, kidnapping, and robbery.

The Crown sought to use evidence of association between the accused and others, combined with cell phone proximity data, to establish identity in joint enterprise crimes.

The accused argued against this, citing concerns about 'guilt by association.' The court permitted the use of certain categories of association evidence (phone contact, contact information, surveillance observations, witness testimony) for the limited purpose of considering cell phone patterns in the context of joint enterprise crimes, provided careful jury instructions were given to prevent 'guilt by association.' However, the court disallowed the use of 'mirrored phone movements' across different counts and the circumstances of collective arrests as association evidence, finding their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value.

The accused in a 29-count indictment for theft, kidnapping, robbery, and possession of property obtained by crime brought directed verdict applications at the close of the Crown's case.

The applications were dismissed, with the court finding that the Crown's circumstantial evidence, particularly cell phone data showing symmetrical movement and association between the accused, was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of guilt for each count.

The court clarified the legal test for directed verdicts in circumstantial cases, rejecting the defence's argument that evidence must be inconsistent with any other explanation.

Jalani Daley pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit robbery.

The sentencing involved an agreed-upon sentence of two and a half years, reduced for pre-trial custody credit on a two-for-one basis.

The primary dispute was the credit for restrictive bail terms, with the Crown proposing six months and the offender seeking 12 to 14 months.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the serious nature of the offences involving an imitation firearm and the planned nature of the robberies, and mitigating factors such as the offender's guilty plea, lack of prior record, community support, employment, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The court ultimately granted 10 months credit for the moderately stringent restrictive bail terms, resulting in a total sentence of 17.5 months in addition to pre-trial custody credit.

The appellant appealed a conviction for dangerous driving, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, an unreasonable verdict, and seeking to introduce fresh evidence consisting of Google Maps photographs of the scene.

Applying the Palmer test, the court found the proposed evidence would not reasonably have affected the verdict and therefore refused to admit it.

The court also held that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of competent representation, finding trial counsel’s preparation and cross-examination were within the range of reasonable professional assistance and that no prejudice was demonstrated.

Finally, the court concluded that the verdict was reasonable on the totality of the evidence and that the trial judge’s brief reasons were nonetheless sufficient to permit appellate review.

The appellant appealed a conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding language comprehension, that the roadside demand was not made “forthwith,” and that police lacked reasonable suspicion to demand an approved screening device test.

The court held that police took reasonable steps to ensure the accused understood his rights, including arranging consultation with a Punjabi-speaking lawyer before breath samples were taken.

The delay in administering the screening test while awaiting the device was reasonably necessary and did not provide a realistic opportunity to consult counsel prior to the roadside demand.

The officer’s observations of erratic driving, odour of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and admission of recent drinking constituted objectively reasonable grounds for suspicion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault with a weapon and uttering a death threat arising from a domestic incident.

At trial, conflicting evidence was presented regarding a prior incident involving the complainant, the accused, and responding police officers, raising significant credibility issues.

The trial judge acknowledged the conflicts but declined to make findings about them, instead concluding the complainant was credible and convicting the accused.

On appeal, the court held that the credibility assessment could not properly be made without resolving the contradictions between the complainant’s testimony and the police evidence.

The failure to consider and make findings on these material conflicts constituted a palpable and overriding error affecting the safety of the convictions.

A new trial was ordered.