Jessica Carrie Smith Joy

The appellant appealed his conviction for historical indecent assault against his stepson, arguing the trial judge engaged in uneven scrutiny of the evidence and provided insufficient reasons regarding the reliability of the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, including the rejection of the appellant's exculpatory explanations.

The court also held that the trial judge's reasons sufficiently addressed the reliability of the complainant's evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, J.P., appealed convictions for three counts of sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's credibility assessment of the appellant, particularly regarding inconsistencies in testimony, and the assessment of the complainant's reliability, including the relevance of her failure to call for assistance during the incidents.

The Court found no error in the trial judge's conclusions that the appellant's elaborations were deliberate embellishments and that the complainant's failure to call for help was irrelevant to her credibility in the circumstances.

The appellant, Kirk Williams, sought leave to appeal his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence for sexual assault causing bodily harm and choking.

He argued the sentencing judge erred in finding the statutory pathways for designation were met and in assessing future harm and treatment prospects.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's conclusions regarding the dangerous offender pathways, the consideration of medical treatments, or the assessment of recidivism risk.

The court upheld the indeterminate sentence as necessary for public protection.

The appellant, Kristian Jarvis, appealed his sentence of 13 years in custody for multiple firearm-related robberies, aggravated assault, and failing to stop for police.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by imposing consecutive sentences, imposing a harsh sentence, failing to adhere to the principle of restraint, and improperly weighing aggravating and mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal found no error, upholding the consecutive sentences for flight from police due to the need for deterrence, confirming the sentence was not excessive given the circumstances, and noting the sentencing judge properly considered restraint while prioritizing denunciation and deterrence.

The court also affirmed that reweighing factors is not an appellate function.

The appellant, D.G., appealed his conviction for sexual offences against two foster children, RY and TY, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding collusion among complainants, applied uneven scrutiny to Crown and defence evidence, and failed to adequately consider tainting of evidence by police questions.

The Court of Appeal found that while there were minor misapprehensions of evidence, they were peripheral and did not affect the material assessment of credibility or the similar act evidence.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or application of the burden of proof, and rejected the argument of uneven scrutiny.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Steven Vanroy Browne, appealed his conviction for manslaughter, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that evidence of phone numbers provided to his probation officer was inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal found the verdict reasonable, supported by DNA evidence, mobile phone records, and association evidence, despite inconsistencies in eyewitness identification.

The court also upheld the admission of phone number evidence, ruling it was not compelled and did not violate Charter rights, as the appellant failed to establish a subjective or objective belief of compulsion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for five counts of attempted murder and arson, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

He claimed his counsel failed to challenge the voluntariness of his police statement and failed to prepare him for trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no factual basis for the claims and concluding that, even if there were, the appellant suffered no prejudice given the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the trial judge's detailed reasons for rejecting his testimony.

The appellant, Hussein Kelkas, appealed his conviction for three counts of sexual assault involving two complainants.

The central issue at trial was consent.

The trial judge found the complainants credible and the appellant's evidence incredible.

The appeal grounds included misapprehension of evidence, impermissible judicial notice, improper bolstering of credibility, and a finding of fact without evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of evidence or credibility, and no impermissible use of judicial notice.

The appellant, an Indigenous man, sought leave to appeal a 30-month sentence for aggravated assault and breach of probation, arguing the trial judge failed to properly apply Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge adequately considered Gladue principles, even without a formal Gladue report, by relying on a s. 21 Mental Health Act report.

The court concluded the sentence was fit given the gravity and escalating nature of the offences and the appellant's history of failed rehabilitation and terrorizing the complainant.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of stolen property, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and operating a motor vehicle while disqualified.

He argued that the trial judge erred in relying on flawed eyewitness identification evidence and in finding that his driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly cautioned herself on the frailties of eyewitness identification and reasonably relied on overwhelming confirmatory evidence.

The court also upheld the trial judge's findings regarding the dangerous driving and the stolen licence plate.

The appellant appealed his convictions and 6-year sentence for internet luring, sexual interference, and sexual assault of a developmentally delayed child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessment, which relied on corroborating electronic messages showing grooming behaviour.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit given the exploitation of a highly vulnerable child.

However, the court stayed the sexual assault charge to avoid double jeopardy.

The appellant appealed his convictions for armed robbery and disguise with intent, arguing the trial judge's reliance on DNA evidence and a generic physical description was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the totality of the circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, witness testimony, canine tracking, and the location of the appellant's DNA on a T-shirt used as a mask during the robbery.

The sentence appeal was abandoned, though the victim fine was quashed on consent.

The appellant appealed his conviction and six-month sentence for sexual assault.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting the legally blind complainant's video recorded statement as her evidence-in-chief under s. 715.2 of the Criminal Code, and in excluding evidence of prior sexual history under s. 276.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or application of the W.(D.) principles, and upheld the sentence and mandatory sex offender registry order.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and firearms offences arising from a shooting during a fictitious drug transaction.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the Crown's key witness, rejecting the victim's testimony, making findings about the shotgun without expert evidence, and that he was deprived of a remedy for late disclosure Charter breaches.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, evidentiary inferences, or handling of the Charter remedies.

The appellant appealed his convictions arising from a vehicular accident, arguing his guilty pleas should be struck.

He claimed he pled guilty under the mistaken belief it would grant him access to drug treatment court and that he could easily strike the pleas later.

The Court of Appeal found the pleas were not informed, noting the absence of a s. 606(1.1) Criminal Code plea inquiry and a comment by the trial judge suggesting the pleas could be easily struck.

The appeal was allowed, the guilty pleas were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the lower court.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving a child under 16, as well as a six‑year custodial sentence.

The complainant disclosed years later that the appellant, a trusted family friend living with her father, sexually abused her repeatedly when she was eight to nine years old.

The Court of Appeal rejected arguments that the trial judge improperly assessed credibility or should have rejected all of the complainant’s testimony after declining to find proof of one alleged act of intercourse.

The court confirmed that a trier of fact may accept parts of a witness’s testimony while rejecting others and found the trial judge’s credibility analysis thorough and well supported.

The sentence was upheld as consistent with the serious harm caused by sexual abuse of a child, though the mandatory victim surcharge was set aside.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for using a firearm while committing an offence under s. 85(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, as well as the imposition of a victim fine surcharge.

He had pled guilty to robbery with a firearm and other offences.

The Court of Appeal held that a conviction under s. 85(1)(a) is precluded when the underlying offence is robbery under s. 344, as the use of a firearm is already an essential element.

The conviction and its consecutive one-year sentence were quashed, reducing the global sentence to five years.

The victim fine surcharge was also struck down on consent pursuant to Boudreault.

The appellant pled guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession contrary to a prohibition order, obstruction of a police officer, and failure to comply with a recognizance.

At sentencing, the Crown requested a global sentence of 36 months.

The trial judge mistakenly believed the Crown sought 42 months and imposed a global sentence of 39 months.

The Court of Appeal found this misapprehension of the Crown's submissions to be an error in principle.

The appeal was allowed, and the global sentence was reduced to 33 months.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter, assault, failing to comply, and uttering a threat to an animal.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on the evidence of two witnesses due to alleged inconsistencies and omissions, and challenged the admission of a prior sworn statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings and noting the prior statement was admitted on consent.

The appeal was dismissed, save for setting aside the victim fine surcharges.

The appellant, Christopher Dockery, appealed his five-year sentence for aggravated assault, arguing the sentencing judge erred by not granting enhanced credit for pre-trial custody spent in lockdown and by failing to assist him as a self-represented party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding enhanced credit, finding the sentencing judge properly exercised discretion under R. v. Duncan.

However, the appeal was allowed by consent of the Crown regarding the victim surcharge.