José Andrés Hannah Suarez

The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal harassment and sexual assault, as well as his six-month conditional sentence order.

The offences occurred at a housing shelter where both the appellant and the complainant resided.

On appeal, the appellant argued the verdicts were unreasonable, the trial judge misapprehended evidence, his Charter rights were violated due to lost video surveillance, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments were sound, the lost video evidence was peripheral and not due to police negligence, and the trial was fair.

The sentence was also upheld as fit and proportionate.

The decision concerns the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal in a criminal case involving convictions for offences arising from an unlawful entry into a dwelling.

The appellant, Gediminas Kevalas, sought to admit medical and related records to support his intoxication defence, arguing that he lacked the requisite mens rea for the offences.

The court found that the fresh evidence was compelling, relevant, and credible, and that its admission was in the interests of justice.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed her conviction for impaired driving, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and challenging the trial judge's Charter rulings.

She claimed her trial counsel failed to advise her of the option to testify only on the voir dire, leading her to make damaging admissions during the trial proper.

The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel's strategic decisions did not fall below the standard of reasonable professional assistance and did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal judge also upheld the trial judge's decisions to deny a stay of proceedings for lost video evidence and to admit the police officers' observations despite Charter breaches.

Sentencing following guilty pleas to criminal harassment, threats, luring, child pornography offences, and recognizance breaches, together with a post-trial conviction for voyeurism, arising from a years-long pattern of online exploitation and threats against female victims, including children.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and protection of society in sentencing sexual offences against children, relying on the gravity analysis in child-exploitation jurisprudence and the totality principle for multiple connected offences.

Although the offender was a youthful first offender with family support, treatment engagement, and rehabilitation prospects, the offences involved prolonged manipulative conduct, explicit threats, distribution and possession of child pornography, and further offending while on bail.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7.5 years before statutory custody credit, together with substantial ancillary orders including a 20-year s. 161 order and lifetime SOIRA registration.

The accused was charged with voyeurism for taking 'up-skirt' videos of women on public transit and at his workplace.

The accused claimed he hired escorts and had their consent to live out a fantasy.

The court rejected the accused's statement as inconsistent with the video evidence, which showed him quickly following unsuspecting women.

The court found that the recordings captured the anal region (buttocks) of the subjects, who had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and entered a finding of guilt.

The accused, E.I., was charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The forcible confinement charge was withdrawn during the trial.

The central issue was whether the complainant, D.H.-G., consented to the sexual activity.

The court found D.H.-G.'s evidence lacked credibility and reliability due to numerous contradictions and inconsistencies between her trial testimony, police statement, and preliminary inquiry evidence, as well as contradictions from the Crown's supporting witness.

The Crown failed to disprove consent beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal for the accused on the sexual assault charge.

Jeremie Naidoo, a court clerk, was charged with two counts of attempting to obstruct justice and one count of breach of trust by a public official after allegedly asking a colleague not to enter his impaired driving charges into the court's tracking system.

The court found that while the actus reus for obstructing justice was established, there was reasonable doubt regarding the mens rea for both charges, particularly concerning his intent to use his public office for personal benefit or to wilfully obstruct justice, given his open discussions with a Crown Attorney.

Consequently, Naidoo was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused brought two pre-trial applications in a historical sexual assault prosecution.

First, he sought production of complainants’ therapeutic and medical records under s. 278 of the Criminal Code.

Second, he sought permission under s. 276 to cross‑examine the complainants regarding prior sexual assaults committed by another individual, arguing it was relevant to testing the reliability of their memories.

The court held the defence failed to demonstrate that the requested third‑party records were likely relevant or necessary in the interests of justice, emphasizing the strong privacy interests in therapeutic records and the prohibition on speculative fishing expeditions.

However, limited cross‑examination regarding the other assaults was permitted solely to test memory and reliability, not to invoke the prohibited “twin myths.”

Sentencing decision for possession of a restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition.

Police executed a search warrant at an apartment where the accused attempted to discard a handgun through a window; numerous rounds of ammunition and a magazine were also discovered in the residence.

Although the court previously found a breach of the accused’s s. 8 Charter rights relating to the search warrant, the evidence was admitted under the framework in R. v. Grant.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in firearms offences, particularly where the accused possessed a handgun and large quantities of ammunition in a residence with young children while subject to a prohibition order.

Considering both mitigating factors and significant aggravating features, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence.

The applicant sought exclusion of a firearm, ammunition, and related evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms following the execution of a search warrant.

The court found the warrant was issued without sufficient information to establish reasonable and probable grounds, resulting in a breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

However, the firearm was discarded from a window during execution of the warrant, which the court held constituted abandonment with only a tenuous causal connection to the Charter breach.

Although the later warrantless seizure of ammunition from a suitcase violated s. 8, the court applied the Grant framework and concluded the evidence should not be excluded.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.