John-Paul Joseph Tan Radelet

The appellant appealed his convictions for child luring, invitation to sexual touching, child sexual abuse and exploitation material offences, and weapons dangerous.

He argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his defence of mistaken belief in age by setting the reasonable steps standard too high and misapprehending evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly concluded the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain the 14-year-old complainant's age despite obvious red flags.

The court also rejected arguments to extend the private use exception for child pornography and found no reversal of the burden of proof on the weapons charge.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Riley Kostuk’s appeal from his conviction for second degree murder.

Kostuk argued that his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was violated, that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of prior discreditable conduct, and that evidence of his schizophrenia was improperly admitted or not properly limited.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s rulings, holding that the appellant had an operating mind when consulting counsel, that the prior conduct evidence was properly admitted for motive and identity, and that the references to mental health did not prejudice the trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, facing extradition to the U.S. for alleged sexual offenses, appealed his committal order and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order.

The appeal challenged the dismissal of a disclosure application, arguing a nexus between alleged misconduct during arrest and extradition proceedings, and the committal judge's finding on accessing child pornography, asserting the private use exception.

The judicial review argued the Minister's surrender order was unreasonable due to impermissible delegation and insufficient consultation with IRCC regarding potential deportation to India.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the judicial review, finding no error in the disclosure ruling, confirming the private use exception is a defence not for committal judges, and upholding the Minister's reasonable exercise of discretion and consultation.