Joanne K. Stuart

The appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and one count of gross indecency against his niece and nephew.

He appealed on the basis that his Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) was violated.

The trial lasted 660 days from the swearing of the information to the end of closing submissions, exceeding the Jordan threshold of 548 days by 112 days.

The trial judge dismissed the section 11(b) application, finding that after deducting defence delay and exceptional circumstances, the net delay fell just short of the threshold.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made errors in calculating defence delay and pandemic-related delay.

After correcting these errors, the net delay was 571 days, exceeding the Jordan threshold by 23 days.

The court set aside the convictions and stayed the proceedings.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possessing a firearm, carrying a concealed firearm, and carelessly storing a firearm.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

The trial judge found that the appellant had joint possession of a firearm his brother displayed during an altercation at a McDonald's, based on the appellant's position and actions.

The trial judge also found the appellant was a party to the careless storage of two firearms discovered in an alley after police pursuit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding the trial judge properly applied the legal principles governing circumstantial evidence and that her findings and inferences were reasonably available on the evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Samer Al-Akhali’s conviction appeal for sexual assault but allowed his sentence appeal, reducing his penitentiary sentence from five years to three.

The court found that the trial judge properly rejected the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, and that the trial was procedurally fair.

However, the trial judge erred by not giving sufficient weight to the principles of rehabilitation and restraint applicable to youthful first-time offenders.

The appellate court emphasized that, while denunciation and deterrence are important in serious sexual assault cases, rehabilitation and restraint must be prioritized for young, first-time offenders, and the sentence must be proportionate and individualized.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, despite the delay being below the Jordan ceiling.

The application judge erred by assessing the reasonableness of the delay against a hypothetical scenario where judicial vacancies were filled, rather than the actual systemic circumstances.

The Court of Appeal clarified that the constitutional yardstick for below-ceiling delays is not an ideal state but the real-world conditions, and that delays due to judicial vacancies, while concerning, are not per se "unreasonable" under s. 11(b) if the overall delay remains presumptively reasonable.

The appeal was granted, the stay set aside, and a new trial ordered.

Cory Crockatt appealed his convictions for breaking and entering, possession of stolen property, and failing to comply with release conditions.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's assessment of identification evidence, the scope of alternative possibilities considered in the circumstantial case for the break-in, and the reasonableness of the stolen car possession verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's reasoning regarding identification evidence or the circumstantial case, and concluding that the verdict for possession of stolen property was reasonable based on the cumulative evidence.

The appellant, Darryl Rusaw, appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The trial judge had convicted him of sexually assaulting the complainant S.S. after acquitting him on another charge.

Rusaw argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his post-incident conversation with a witness and erred in rejecting the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The Court of Appeal found no fault with the trial judge's assessment of the witness's evidence and upheld the rejection of the mistaken belief defence, citing the trial judge's finding that the appellant took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent from the sleeping complainant.

The appeal was dismissed.

Charles Okito pleaded guilty to kidnapping and robbery.

The court considered aggravating factors (impact on victim, imitation firearm) and mitigating factors (youth, first offence, guilty plea, difficult background, mental health challenges, collateral consequence of deportation).

Applying sentencing principles, including deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of 42 months' imprisonment before credit for presentence custody, resulting in a further 20 months and 15 days to serve.

The judge also made a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order, and waived the victim fine surcharge.

The judge recommended against deportation due to the offender's rehabilitation prospects and lack of support in his home country.

The appellants, Alton Grant and Shaqwan Kawano, appealed their first-degree murder convictions.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on how to assess exculpatory eyewitness identification evidence, specifically regarding a key witness whose testimony arguably contradicted the Crown's theory of identity.

This error was deemed serious and not curable.

The court dismissed Grant's Charter s. 11(b) application for unreasonable delay and found the verdict against him was not unreasonable.

However, due to the misdirection on eyewitness identification, the appeals were allowed, and new trials were ordered for both appellants.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of sexual interference and incest.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred by allowing improper cross-examination regarding the complainant's motive to fabricate and by failing to provide a limiting instruction on a prior inconsistent statement.

The Court of Appeal found both errors to be significant and prejudicial, particularly the improper cross-examination which risked shifting the burden of proof, and the lack of instruction on the prior inconsistent statement which could have led the jury to use it for the truth of its contents.

The court rejected the Crown's argument to apply the curative proviso, concluding that the verdict would not necessarily have been the same without these errors.

A new trial was ordered.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering detention of a not criminally responsible accused at a forensic psychiatric facility.

The appellant sought conditional discharge with residence at his mother's home.

The Court of Appeal found the Board failed in its inquisitorial duty by not adequately exploring whether safeguards could mitigate concerns about attending physicians' understanding of the appellant's specific delusional disorder, and by relying on an unexplained administrative decision denying residence with his mother without requiring justification.

The appeal was allowed and the matter returned to the Board for re-hearing on an expedited basis.

The appellant was convicted of a single count of sexual assault against his then spouse following a judge-alone trial.

He was acquitted of sexual offences against his children.

The appellant appealed his conviction, challenging the trial judge's dismissal of an application to reopen the trial based on fresh evidence.

The fresh evidence consisted of Day Timer entries suggesting the date of the hysterectomy may have been approximately ten months later than the complainant testified.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's assessment that the proposed fresh evidence would not have affected the verdict.