Joseph R. Jakabfy

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual interference involving a nine-year-old developmentally delayed child.

He argued the verdict was unreasonable and sought to introduce fresh evidence alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments sound and rejecting the ineffective assistance claim.

The sentence appeal was allowed only to the extent of adding a probationary condition restricting the appellant's contact with children, on consent of the parties.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for robbery.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence, which the Court of Appeal rejected as not capable of belief.

The Court found the trial judge conducted the trial with scrupulous fairness despite the appellant choosing to self-represent.

The verdict was not unreasonable, and the trial judge did not err in failing to expressly address the defence of intoxication, given the appellant's own testimony.

The appeal from conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault.

The Crown conceded that evidence of the appellant's impending jail term should not have been admitted at trial.

However, the Court of Appeal found that the admission of this evidence did not cause any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The appeals against both conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's determination that the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed.