Publication ban

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Stephen Young’s appeal from his convictions for sexual assault and forcible confinement, as well as his sentence appeal.

The court found that the trial judge’s credibility findings were entitled to deference and that the trial judge had properly addressed the evidentiary and credibility issues raised by the appellant.

The sentence of 5.5 years less presentence custody was found not to be unfit.

The appeal is subject to a publication ban under s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, Keldon Halstead, abandoned his appeal from convictions entered by Justice Shaun S. Nakatsuru of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario, constituted by Fairburn A.C.J.O., Trotter J.A., and Harvison Young J.A., noted the abandonment at Mr. Halstead’s request and dismissed the appeal.

The decision is subject to a publication ban on the identity of a witness under section 486.31(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, Sandra Forcier, appealed her convictions for sexual assault and sexual exploitation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s credibility findings or conclusions.

The court noted the assistance of amicus curiae due to the appellant’s brain injury and confirmed that the trial judge’s reasons were entitled to deference.

This decision addresses the charge of criminal harassment under section 264(2)(d) of the Criminal Code, specifically focusing on whether the creation and content of a website by the accused, Mahyar Radmehr, constituted threatening conduct causing the complainant, Ms. K., to reasonably fear for her safety.

The Court found that while the website caused embarrassment, anxiety, and frustration to Ms. K., it was not designed as a tool of intimidation to instill fear.

The Crown failed to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in an acquittal.

The Court also declined to impose a common law peace bond requested by the Crown, finding no reasonable fear to justify such an order.

The decision addresses an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act in a defamation action brought by Prasanth Tella against A.B., his former partner.

The allegedly defamatory statements were made primarily to the Ottawa Police Service’s Professional Standards Section and to a few other individuals.

The court finds that most of the statements at issue relate to a matter of public interest, but some do not.

The court concludes that the statements made to the Professional Standards Section are protected by absolute privilege and that the plaintiff has not met the burden to show there are no valid defences.

The action is dismissed, with leave to bring a new action regarding certain statements if desired.

The court also grants an anonymity order and a publication ban regarding the defendant’s identity.

This decision concerns the continued effect of a non-publication order under section 517 of the Criminal Code and section 110 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act in the context of an appeal.

The Court confirms that the publication ban remains in effect and that the full decision will only be made publicly available once the order ceases to apply.

In the meantime, the decision is available for inspection at the Registry of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion for restrictions on access to the court file and decision in a Hague Convention child abduction appeal, where the child had been granted refugee status.

The appellant sought anonymization, a publication ban, and sealing of documents created under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court reviewed the open court principle, the best interests of the child, and the test for discretionary limits on openness from Sherman Estate v. Donovan.

The court ordered anonymization, a publication ban, and sealing of IRPA documents, but declined to seal the entire file, balancing the child’s privacy and safety against the public interest in court openness.

The appellant, M.J., appealed the dismissal of her habeas corpus application seeking Charter remedies for damages following her transfer between detention facilities while facing a charge of second-degree murder.

The application judge found the matter moot as M.J. had been released on bail prior to the hearing.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge’s conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted a motion to quash an appeal in a family law matter concerning a motion for a sealing order and publication ban to protect a child’s privacy.

The court held that the order under appeal was interlocutory, not final, and thus any appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

The decision reviews the distinction between interlocutory and final orders, emphasizing that privacy and sealing orders are generally collateral to the main issues in family law proceedings and do not determine substantive rights.

The court also declined to reconstitute itself as the Divisional Court.

This addendum clarifies the status of a publication ban in a criminal proceeding.

The complainant, M.C., has confirmed they do not wish to rescind the publication ban protecting their identity.

The court reinstates the publication ban regarding M.C.'s identity and confirms that the publication ban for witness A.B. remains in effect.

This endorsement addresses urgent interim relief in a contested plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act involving Converge Technology Solutions Corp. and 16728421 Canada Inc. (HIG).

The dispute arose after Converge received an unsolicited proposal from a third party, leading to motions regarding confidentiality, publication bans, and the process for shareholder notification.

The court continued interim sealing and publication ban orders until the facts crystallize, particularly regarding whether a "Superior Proposal" is received and determined by the board.

The decision applies the Supreme Court’s test for discretionary limits on court openness, balancing the need to protect commercially sensitive information with the principle of open courts.

The appellant, Milad Babadi, appealed his convictions for uttering threats and criminal harassment, as well as the sentence imposed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were not informed or voluntary.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel’s representation was competent, that the appellant’s mental health issues were properly considered, and that the pleas were voluntary.

The court also denied a request for a sealing order and publication ban on medical information, emphasizing the open court principle.

This decision concerns an application to vary or revoke a publication ban under section 486.51 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant, M.C., requested that the publication ban regarding her identity be revoked, while a witness, A.B., wished the ban to remain in place for her own identity.

The court granted the application in part, rescinding the publication ban as it related to M.C. but maintaining it for A.B., emphasizing the legislative purpose of such bans and the statutory rights of witnesses.

This decision addresses a Crown application, brought on behalf of two young women, to revoke existing publication bans on their identities under section 486.51 of the Criminal Code.

The court confirmed its jurisdiction to hear such applications even after the underlying criminal proceedings are complete.

It highlighted that the new legislative provision streamlines the process by removing the requirement for notice to the accused and allowing applications to be heard in chambers.

The application was granted, revoking the publication bans for the two named victims while ensuring other related bans remained in force.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault following a judge-alone trial.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's credibility and reliability, arguing that the judge misapprehended evidence and failed to address the cumulative impact of weaknesses in the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the record and the trial judge's reasons, finding no misapprehension of evidence or piecemeal approach.

The trial judge's findings on credibility were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

The accused, T.M., was charged with multiple counts of assault and sexual assault against R.G., and one count of assault against E.M. The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, R.G., and the accused, T.M., applying the W.D. analysis.

The court found R.G.'s evidence to be inconsistent and unreliable, noting her animus towards T.M. and delayed, inconsistent disclosures.

The court believed T.M.'s denials and found him not guilty on all charges.

An appellant, convicted in 1998 of administering a noxious substance to her child based on flawed Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory (MDTL) hair analysis, successfully reopened her conviction appeal.

Fresh evidence, in the form of two Ministry of the Attorney General reports (2015, 2018) detailing the unreliability of MDTL testing, was admitted.

The Court of Appeal found that without the discredited MDTL evidence, the appellant would not have been convicted.

The conviction for administering cocaine and the stayed conviction for criminal negligence were set aside, and acquittals were entered.

The court also lifted a publication ban on the appellant's name at her request, acknowledging the wrongful conviction and allowing for public correction.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's similar fact evidence ruling or credibility assessment.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, deeming the 14-month concurrent sentence fit given the serious nature of the crimes against very young victims.

The appellant, A.G., appealed convictions for assault causing bodily harm and the imposed sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge reasonably inferred the appellant's participation and encouragement in the assault as a joint principal, noting common participation in a continuing event.

The court also upheld the sentence, concluding that the appellant's failure to plead guilty and express contrition, unlike co-accused, justified a more onerous sentence.

Both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal were dismissed.

The appellant, Manuel Esquivel-Benitez, appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial, finding three errors by the trial judge: (1) an R. v. W.(D.) error in assessing credibility by treating it as a contest between the complainant and the appellant, failing to consider reasonable doubt on the evidence as a whole; (2) failure to meaningfully address the complainant's possible motive to fabricate; and (3) improper reliance on the appellant's presence in the courtroom to negatively assess his credibility, suggesting he tailored his evidence.