Julia Rose Galessiere Cappellacci

The appellant appealed convictions for assault, sexual assault, and uttering threats against his wife, arguing the trial judge's reasons were insufficient and improperly applied the law on credibility assessment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding internal contradictions in the trial judge's credibility assessment of the appellant, rendering the reasons insufficient for appellate review.

The appellant appealed his conviction for historical sexual assault, arguing the trial judge failed to properly address discrepancies between the complainant's evidence and that of her sister, and misapprehended evidence regarding the complainant's demeanour upon disclosure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's brief reasons were responsive to the issues and disclosed no misapprehension of evidence.

The trial judge was entitled to find that discrepancies were explained by the passage of time and to rely on the consistent evidence of the complainant's emotional upset during disclosure to support her credibility and reliability.

The appellant, a driving instructor, appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting a student during a lesson.

He argued the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny, misapprehended evidence, and improperly relied on social norms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's credibility assessment and noting that the trial judge properly applied common sense and human experience.

The appellant appealed his convictions for human trafficking and related offences, as well as his designation as a dangerous offender.

At trial, the complainant recanted her allegations, but the trial judge admitted her prior videotaped statements to police for their truth and relied on them to convict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no circular reasoning, no improper reliance on demeanour evidence, and no error in the application of the W.(D.) framework to the rejected exculpatory testimony.

The Court also dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that the sentencing judge reasonably concluded the appellant's violent conduct was intractable despite psychiatric evidence suggesting his risk could potentially be managed in the community under strict contingencies.

The appellant appealed a sexual assault conviction involving a protected complainant and argued that the trial judge misapplied the third branch of the W.(D.) framework.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge misapprehended defence counsel's submissions, conflated disbelief of the appellant's evidence with the step-three reasonable doubt inquiry, and used adverse credibility findings as a makeweight for guilt.

The court also found the reasons failed to grapple with material weaknesses in the complainant's evidence.

The conviction appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant challenged an annual Review Board disposition that maintained a conditional discharge based on a finding of significant threat to public safety.

On appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code, the court admitted post-hearing psychiatric evidence showing medication discontinuation without decompensation, a revised diagnosis, and a materially lower structured risk assessment.

Applying the interests of justice framework for fresh evidence in NCRMD appeals, the court held the new record required allowing the appeal.

The court found remittal unnecessary because an absolute discharge was the only reasonable disposition on the updated evidence.

An appellant found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision refusing his transfer from the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre back to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.

The appellant, aged 69 with schizoaffective disorder, pedophilic disorder, and borderline intellectual functioning, had been under the Board's jurisdiction since 1998.

After transferring to the Royal Ottawa in November 2024, he faced significantly enhanced liberty restrictions, including confinement to his ward and a pureed food diet due to choking risk.

The Board refused the transfer request, citing the brief duration of his stay and concerns about therapeutic alliance.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, holding that it improperly focused on the appellant's best interests rather than the statutory "least onerous and least restrictive" standard.

The court ordered the transfer to Ontario Shores.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference against his stepdaughter, contrary to sections 271 and 151(a) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the trial judge improperly used the complainant's lack of embellishment as a credibility factor, contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient for appellate review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reference to the complainant being a careful and cautious witness was a proper credibility assessment, and that the reasons, though brief, adequately explained the trial judge's findings when read in context and as a whole.