Jill D. Makepeace

The accused, a family physician, was charged with sexual assault with a weapon (a needle) in relation to a patient who attended his clinic complaining of a headache and sinus infection.

The complainant alleged that during the administration of a Demerol injection, the accused unnecessarily lowered her clothing, inappropriately touched her, engaged in grinding motions against the examination table, discussed her sexual experiences, and ejaculated.

The accused maintained that the procedure was entirely professional and appropriate.

The trial judge found that while the complainant honestly perceived she had been sexually assaulted, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the touching was objectively sexual in nature.

The trial judge identified numerous material inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses, including contradictions regarding the location of meetings, contents of a gift bag, the existence and content of recordings, and the presence of a diagram.

The trial judge also found credibility concerns with the accused's evidence.

Ultimately, the trial judge concluded that the Crown had not met its burden of proof and entered an acquittal.

The appellant, a physician, appealed his conviction on three counts of sexual assault and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered grounds including the admission and use of cross-count similar act evidence, the sufficiency of the trial judge's reasons, errors in credibility and reliability assessment, and the trial judge's treatment of prior consistent statements and motive to fabricate.

The Court found no errors in the trial judge's handling of similar act evidence, the sufficiency of reasons, or the credibility assessments.

It also found no error in the application of the totality principle in sentencing.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The appellant, C.D., appealed convictions and sentence for six counts of sexual assault against five complainants, including patients and a niece.

The conviction appeal centered on the trial judge's admission and use of count-to-count similar act evidence, and failure to sever counts.

The sentence appeal challenged the treatment of aggravating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal, finding no error in the similar act evidence analysis or its use, and the sentence appeal, upholding the 15-month imprisonment sentence as the trial judge did not err in principle regarding aggravating factors like age disparity, duration of offences, impact on victims, or risk of recidivism.

Dr. Wameed Ateyah was convicted of 16 counts of sexual assault and one count of sexual exploitation involving 13 female patients.

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of trust, the number of victims, the intrusive nature of the offences, and falsification of medical records.

Mitigating factors included lack of criminal antecedents, otherwise good character (though attenuated due to breach of trust), collateral consequences (loss of medical license), and physical/mental health issues.

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence, while the Defence sought 3 years.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and public protection as dominant sentencing objectives.

Applying the principle of totality, the court imposed a global sentence of nine years in jail, with credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a final sentence of eight years and 357 days.

The defendant, a doctor, was charged with 24 counts of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference involving fifteen female patients.

The Crown alleged that the defendant intentionally touched patients' breasts and/or genitals for sexual purposes under the guise of medically unnecessary examinations, capitalizing on his position of trust.

The defense argued that some events did not occur or were medically appropriate, and alleged collusion among complainants.

The court granted the Crown's similar fact evidence application, finding a distinctive pattern of behavior and false record-keeping.

The court found the defendant's testimony lacked credibility and reliability.

Ultimately, the defendant was found guilty of 16 counts of sexual assault and 1 count of sexual interference, and acquitted on other counts due to insufficient evidence or Crown's request.

The complainant (J.N.) alleged sexual assault by her former family doctor, Romeo Tan, during a physical exam in May 2014.

J.N. had no memory of the incident for three and a half years until she read a newspaper article.

The defence argued the assault did not occur and highlighted inconsistencies in J.N.'s memory and the implausibility of the events.

The court found J.N. to be a sincere and credible witness but was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that her recovered memory was reliable, given her general poor memory, suggestibility, the delay in recollection, and the lack of independent corroboration.

The defendant was acquitted.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a 20-year custodial sentence for 18 counts of home invasion sexual assaults and related offences committed between 1985 and 1987.

The appeal argued two errors by the sentencing judge: improper application of the totality principle and failure to adequately consider the passage of time and the appellant's advanced age as mitigating factors.

The majority of the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the sentencing judge's approach to totality or the consideration of mitigating factors.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to 14 years, arguing that the trial judge erred in her consideration of the "laying low" factor and the appellant's life expectancy, leading to a disproportionate and "crushing" sentence.

The appellant, convicted of second-degree murder and offering an indignity to human remains, appealed his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal grounds included the trial judge's ruling on solicitor-client privilege over seized notes, the dismissal of an alternate suspect application, and the failure to leave manslaughter as an available verdict to the jury.

The sentence appeal sought a reduction in the 17-year parole ineligibility period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding the conviction and the imposed sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's rulings or the sentencing decision.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the 30-month sentence.

The conviction appeal was based on the trial judge's alleged uneven scrutiny of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility and reliability, despite a minor misapprehension regarding the planning of the offence.

The sentence appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to two years less a day, as the trial judge erred in finding an aggravating factor (methodical planning) that was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also considered the appellant's cognitive deficits and the appropriate sentencing range for similar offences.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault arising from an incident on January 31, 2016, where he met the complainant in a bar and took her to his parents' apartment.

The complainant testified that after consensual kissing, she expressed that she did not want to have sex, but the appellant proceeded with non-consensual vaginal intercourse and anal contact.

The appellant testified that the intercourse was consensual and denied anal contact.

The trial judge convicted the appellant based on acceptance of the complainant's credibility and rejection of the appellant's evidence.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: insufficiency of reasons, improper use of prior consistent statements, and uneven scrutiny of evidence.

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

The appellant appealed both his conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The conviction arose from a motor vehicle accident.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence, particularly the eyewitness testimony regarding the movements of the vehicles immediately before and at the time of the accident.

The court found no error in the trial judge's treatment of the mens rea component of the offence.

On the sentence appeal, the court upheld the 18-month custodial sentence and the 10-year driving prohibition as being within the appropriate range.

An appeal of conviction and sentence for historical sexual offences.

The appellant, a pediatrician, was convicted of three counts of indecent assault relating to two former female patients, with offences spanning from 1964 to 2013.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty based on the complainants' evidence while rejecting his denials.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside all three convictions, ordering a new trial based on multiple misapprehensions of evidence by the trial judge, including erroneous inferences drawn from uncontradicted evidence and improper reliance on the absence of motive to lie as a credibility enhancer.

An anesthesiologist was convicted at trial of 21 counts of sexual assault against female patients who underwent surgery under conscious sedation at a hospital.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: (1) that the trial judge erred in finding he had the opportunity to commit the offences; (2) that the trial judge mishandled expert evidence regarding the effects of anesthetics on patient awareness and memory, including evidence about anesthetic-induced hallucinations and the bite-down reflex; and (3) that the trial judge improperly relied on evidence of similar acts to establish guilt on individual counts.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge's factual findings were grounded in evidence, free from misapprehension, and entitled to deference.

The court emphasized that the appellant had exclusive opportunity to commit the offences, that the trial judge properly assessed conflicting expert evidence, and that evidence of similar acts was properly used as circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed both his conviction and sentence for sexual assault and invitation to touching a person under the age of 14 for a sexual purpose.

The conviction appeal was dismissed as the trial judge's reasons were sufficient and addressed all material issues.

The sentence appeal was allowed on the basis that the trial judge imposed a sentence exceeding the Crown's submissions without providing notice or opportunity for further submissions, constituting an error in principle.

The appellate court reassessed the sentence and imposed a global sentence of six years (44 months consecutive to the prior 28-month sentence) rather than the trial judge's six years and four months.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching.

He raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the trial judge interfered with defence counsel's cross-examination of the complainant, diverting counsel from relevant lines of inquiry; and second, that the trial judge's reasons were unbalanced, favoured the Crown, and failed to resolve material conflicts in evidence or meaningfully scrutinize the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal rejected both grounds, finding that the trial judge's interventions were appropriate and necessary to ensure fair treatment of the witness and clarity of evidence, and that her reasons were careful, detailed, and balanced.

The appeal was dismissed.

This criminal trial concerned a large-scale drug trafficking operation, 'Project Odyssey,' which led to the seizure of significant quantities of cocaine, methamphetamine, and GHB.

Six defendants were arraigned, with one passing away during the trial.

The court addressed preliminary motions regarding confidential informant privilege and a stay of proceedings based on alleged police misconduct, both of which were dismissed.

The core issues at trial involved proving possession, knowledge, and intent for trafficking and importing charges, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence.

The court applied the principles of reasonable doubt and the Supreme Court's guidance on circumstantial evidence from *R. v. Villaroman*.

Ultimately, four defendants were convicted of trafficking, while one was fully acquitted.

Importing charges against two defendants were dismissed due to reasonable doubt.

This appeal and cross-appeal addressed whether Ontario’s SIU framework permits police officers involved in fatal incidents to consult counsel before completing duty notes.

The majority held the regulatory scheme does not permit consultation with counsel at the note-making stage, emphasizing transparency, public confidence, legislative history, and the duty to prepare independent, complete notes.

It rejected even limited pre-note legal consultation as inconsistent with the scheme’s objectives, while confirming officers may consult counsel after filing notes.

The cross-appeal was allowed, overturning the Court of Appeal’s allowance of basic legal advice prior to notes.

Dissenting reasons on cross-appeal would have preserved a narrow right to basic legal advice that excluded drafting assistance.