Joanne K. Stuart

The appellant appealed a conviction for luring a child to engage in sexual activity arising from an undercover online investigation.

The principal issue was whether the proceedings should have been stayed for entrapment.

Applying the entrapment framework, the court held that the police had reasonable grounds to suspect criminal activity from the advertisement and ensuing communications, and did not induce the offence.

Additional grounds concerning jury trial, warrant naming errors, medical condition, psychological assessment methodology, and alleged evidence tampering were all rejected.

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

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching in respect of a seven-year-old child.

The appellant argued the trial judge made three errors in assessing the child's credibility, including relying on stereotypical reasoning regarding a sex education book, speculating about the child's ability to operate a camera, and improperly assessing the child's motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's inferences were grounded in the specific evidence and correctly applied a common sense approach to assessing the child's evidence without rigid stereotypes.

The appellant appealed his convictions on two counts of assault causing bodily harm relating to his two-month-old infant, who suffered 12 rib fractures on two separate occasions.

The appellant argued the first verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge misapplied the W. (D.) principles, and that the second verdict involved an error in applying the test for implied consent during an attempt to administer CPR.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings reasonable, the W. (D.) principles properly applied, and that the force used during the alleged CPR was excessive, vitiating any defence of implied consent.

The appellant appealed his convictions for manslaughter and assault in respect of the death of his infant son, as well as his sentence.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence of civilian witnesses and a medical expert.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no material error in the trial judge's appreciation of the evidence.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed to grant enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody at a ratio of 1.5:1, reducing the residual sentence to 5.25 years' imprisonment.

The appellant struck a pedestrian with his vehicle and left the scene without assisting.

A tractor trailer subsequently struck and killed the unconscious victim.

The appellant was committed to stand trial for failing to stop, manslaughter, and criminal negligence causing death.

He applied for certiorari to quash the committal for manslaughter and criminal negligence, which was dismissed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the application judge properly applied the 'reasonably foreseeable' approach to legal causation from Maybin, and that leaving the scene carried a reasonably foreseeable risk of immediate and substantial harm.

The appellant appealed his convictions for ten offences, including attempted aggravated assault and discharge of a firearm, arising from an incident at an auto repair shop.

He argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on eyewitness identification, the presumption of possession for a driver, and attempted murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the identification charge adequate, applying the curative proviso to a minor error regarding possession, and upholding the attempted murder instruction based on the appellant's conduct.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and uttering a threat to cause death.

The complainant died before trial.

Her preliminary inquiry testimony and a videotaped statement to police were admitted into evidence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in admitting the videotaped statement for the truth of its contents, over-relying on the complainant's demeanour, and applying different levels of scrutiny to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the videotaped statement was not necessary and constituted an inadmissible prior consistent statement.

The court also found the trial judge placed undue weight on demeanour evidence not subject to cross-examination and applied an uneven standard of scrutiny.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were set aside.

The appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault following his participation in a prison riot where he severely injured an unconscious inmate.

He was sentenced to seven and one-half years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the principle of parity, given the lighter sentences imposed on co-accused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disparity was justified because the appellant's participation was of significantly greater gravity and moral blameworthiness than that of the other participants.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for forcible confinement and assault due to a delusional disorder, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention on the Secure Forensic Unit at CAMH.

He sought a transfer to the less secure General Forensic Unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable because the appellant's refusal to engage with his treatment team prevented the hospital from assessing his risk, and the higher staff-to-patient ratio on the secure unit actually allowed him more escorted passes.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference involving two young children.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury against using evidence relating to one complainant as propensity evidence for the other, and by admitting hearsay statements.

The Court of Appeal found no error in admitting the hearsay statements but held that the failure to provide a limiting instruction on cross-count propensity reasoning was a fatal error.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellants were convicted of drug-related kidnapping and robbery.

At trial, two key Crown witnesses recanted their prior statements inculpating the appellants.

The trial judge admitted the prior inconsistent statements for the truth of their contents under the K.G.B. framework but refused to allow defence counsel to cross-examine one of the witnesses on her statement after it was admitted.

The trial judge also admitted the entire transcript of a co-accused's guilty plea proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred by denying the defence the right to cross-examine the witness on her prior statement and by admitting the guilty plea proceedings where cross-examination was limited by solicitor-client privilege and the statement contained inadmissible hearsay.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board erred by failing to explicitly consider and reject a conditional discharge, despite a joint submission for a detention order with expanded privileges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had evidence that a conditional discharge could risk decompensation and suicidal or homicidal reactions due to stress related to the appellant's transgender status.

The Court concluded the Board fully discharged its obligation to impose the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault and choking.

On the conviction appeal, he argued that the trial judge's interventions during the complainant's cross-examination prevented a fair trial and that the trial judge erred in finding no air of reality to the defence of honest belief in consent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the interventions did not curtail cross-examination or show bias, and the factual findings foreclosed the honest belief defence.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found that consecutive sentences for sexual assault and choking were not warranted as the choking was part of the sexual assault.

The Court also applied a 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody, reducing the total sentence from six years to four and a half years.

The young person appealed a finding of guilt for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge applied differing levels of scrutiny to the evidence and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to bring a section 11(b) Charter application for delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessment.

The Court also held that the appellant failed to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice, as a section 11(b) application would not have had a reasonable chance of success given the periods of defence delay.

The appellant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while disqualified after being stopped driving an e-bike with inoperable pedals.

The trial judge and summary conviction appeal judge found the device was a motor vehicle under the Criminal Code because it could not be propelled by muscular power.

The appellant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing he did not require a license under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave, finding the appellant raised no question of law alone.

The appellant was convicted of firearm and drug offences arising from cross-border smuggling trips where she transported drugs to the U.S. and returned with guns.

She appealed her convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on wilful blindness and allowing cross-examination on her knowledge of gun crime in Toronto.

She also appealed her seven-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the wilful blindness instruction and no unfairness in the cross-examination.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit and within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable based on differences in transaction methodology, lack of exclusive opportunity, and logistical improbability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of different methodologies, noting the appellant was caught on video misappropriating funds and had the victim's PIN, and concluding the logistics pointed to the appellant rather than anyone else.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for forcible confinement and assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in the Secure Forensic Unit of CAMH.

The appellant argued the Board erred in its placement decision, failed to consider a less restrictive unit, and unfairly limited cross-examination of his treating psychiatrist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's lack of insight, refusal of treatment, and the significant threat he posed to the public.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and related offences, arguing the trial judge failed to scrutinize the complainant's evidence with the same rigour as his own.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not unfairly reject the appellant's evidence and was entitled to accept the complainant's explanation for her incremental disclosure.

The court concluded the trial judge's reasons were adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Summary Convictions Appeal Court dismissing his appeal from conviction.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding that the proposed appeal did not meet either branch of the test for leave to appeal under R. v. R.(R.).

The publication ban on the complainant's identity was continued.