Katherine Marie Beaudoin

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and failing to comply with probation, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board imposing a detention order with community living privileges.

He argued the ORB applied the wrong legal test and should have granted a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB applied the correct test and reasonably concluded that a detention order was necessary to manage the appellant's risk, ensure medication compliance, and allow for expeditious return to the hospital if his condition decompensated.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference, sexual exploitation, and sexual assault against his step-daughter.

He argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his evidence solely because he accepted the complainant's evidence, misapplied the burden of proof, and improperly ruled prior out-of-court statements inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient, the burden of proof was properly applied, and the trial judge's credibility findings were sound despite the evidentiary ruling on prior statements.

The appellant was convicted of having care or control of a vehicle while impaired.

After her first appeal was dismissed by a summary conviction appeal judge, she sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The court found no error of law and noted the trial judge's factual finding that the appellant's conduct created a realistic risk of danger was amply supported by the evidence.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for multiple sexual assaults on multiple children.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to mitigate the sentence based on his own history of childhood sexual abuse and that a Gardiner hearing was required due to ambiguity about the number of assaults.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit given the serious nature of the offences and the appellant's criminal record for similar offences.

The court also held that counsel's ambivalence about the exact number of assaults did not trigger the need for a Gardiner hearing.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring her to a secure forensic unit and revoking her community living privileges.

She argued the Board breached natural justice due to alleged conflicts of interest of two panel members and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the presumption of impartiality was not rebutted and that the Board's disposition was reasonable given the significant deterioration in the appellant's mental state and behaviour.