Publication ban

The appellant appealed convictions for assault and sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence of motive to fabricate and by engaging in improper propensity reasoning.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's reasons regarding motive to fabricate, deeming them adequate when read against the record.

The court also rejected the claim of improper propensity reasoning, clarifying that the trial judge used evidence of controlling behaviour as a contextual factor to assess competing narratives, not as proof of propensity to commit the assaults.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, T.D., appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference involving two complainants, B.S. and B.B. The appeal challenged the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility, specifically regarding inconsistencies in B.S.'s testimony about prior disclosure and the location of incidents, and B.B.'s changing evidence and delayed disclosure of an oral sex incident.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments, affirming that the judge was entitled to treat certain inconsistencies as peripheral given the complainants' age at the time of the events.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, incest, and sexual assault against his biological daughter and sentenced to nine years imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence and that trial counsel was inadequate.

The Court of Appeal found no merit to the uneven scrutiny argument, affirming the trial judge's credibility findings, and no support for the inadequate counsel claim.

The court also found no error in the sentence, noting its consistency with sentencing principles for sexual violence against children.

However, the court granted a Charter remedy, varying the lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) registration order to 20 years, with the Crown's consent.

The appeal from conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The appellant, N.A., appealed a one-year custodial sentence for historical sexual interference.

The trial judge had erred by concluding that a mandatory minimum sentence applied, which incorrectly precluded a conditional sentence.

Despite this conceded error, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the numerous aggravating factors, including the victim's youth, the severe impact of the crime, the breach of a position of trust, and the appellant's victim-blaming, justified the sentence.

The court concluded that the case did not fall into the rare category where a conditional sentence would be appropriate for this type of crime, even with the legal error.

The appellant, a taxi driver, appealed convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a 9-year-old child.

The appeal centered on whether the trial judge misapprehended the complainant's evidence regarding the assailant's smoking and coffee-drinking habits, which the defence argued were central to identity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence and that the details were peripheral to the complainant's core, credible, and reliable testimony.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned due to lack of submissions.

The appellant, P.B., appealed convictions for two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference.

The appeal raised two grounds: the trial judge's alleged failure to address material contradictions between Crown witnesses and the impermissible use of complainants' lack of embellishment to bolster credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the inconsistency regarding a peripheral detail (a television in the appellant's room) was not a reversible error, especially given the complainants' age at the time of the events.

Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge's reference to the complainants' lack of embellishment was not used to improperly bolster credibility but rather to explain why their evidence was not rejected, particularly in light of defence suggestions of fabrication.

The appellant appealed convictions for five sexual offences, including sexual assault, human trafficking, and related material benefit and advertising charges.

The appeal raised four grounds concerning the trial judge's treatment of evidence: a misapprehension of a text message, exclusion of WhatsApp messages, refusal to permit cross-examination on prior "sexual punishment," and improper reliance on two text messages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding that the trial judge's mistake regarding the text message was not essential to the reasoning, the WhatsApp messages were properly excluded under s. 276 of the Criminal Code and Canada Evidence Act due to authenticity concerns and prejudice, the refusal to permit cross-examination on prior sexual punishment was correct as it related to impermissible "twin myth" reasoning, and the reliance on the two text messages was proper.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant, R.K., appealed his conviction for sexual interference and an eight-year sentence.

The appeal raised nine grounds, including alleged errors in refusing production of the complainant's diary, improper use of the diary to enhance credibility, misapprehension of evidence, improper cross-examination on bad acts, overvaluing demeanour, improper corroboration by peripheral details, improper reliance on lack of motive to fabricate, and uneven scrutiny of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding both the conviction and the sentence, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and sentencing decision to be sound.

The accused, Japdeep Randhawa, brought an application under sections 123 and 119(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) seeking access to the complainant M.S.S.'s youth records.

The court ruled that access was governed by section 123(1) of the YCJA.

The application was granted, as the court found that Randhawa had a valid and substantial interest in the records to make full answer and defence, particularly given the serious charges involving a handgun and M.S.S.'s prior youth convictions related to an imitation firearm and threats.

The court balanced M.S.S.'s privacy interests against Randhawa's constitutional right to full answer and defence, concluding that the latter prevailed.

Specific redactions were ordered for personal information and references to other non-witness young persons.

The defendant, Abe Benico Vergara, was found guilty after a trial of six counts of sexual assault involving six adult employees at his massage parlour.

The offences involved non-consensual sexual activity during otherwise consensual massages.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the abuse of a position of authority and forced penetration, and mitigating factors, such as no prior criminal record and positive family support.

Applying principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and totality, the court sentenced the defendant to a total of 68 months (5 years and 8 months) in jail, with some counts running concurrently and others consecutively.

Ancillary orders for a communication ban, DNA, lifetime weapons prohibition, and sexual offender registry were also imposed.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion seeking an order to prohibit the respondent mother from making public social media postings related to the society's involvement with her children, the children's fathers, caregivers, and society employees, and to compel the removal of existing posts.

The mother opposed the motion.

The court granted the orders, finding that the mother's postings violated subsection 87(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, by identifying children and parties to the proceedings.

The court also relied on its inherent power to control its own process to protect participants from cyberbullying and maintain the integrity of child protection proceedings.

The appellant, R.V., appealed his sentence for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching.

Following the Supreme Court of Canada's restoration of his convictions, the case was remitted to the Court of Appeal for Ontario to consider the sentence appeal.

Fresh medical evidence, filed with the Crown's consent, revealed the appellant had terminal cancer with a very bleak prognosis.

In light of these exceptional circumstances, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the original term of imprisonment and probation order, and substituting an 18-month conditional sentence order.

Other orders from the trial judge remained in force.

The appellant, J.G., appealed verdicts of not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder, entered in 2005 when he was 16.

The appeal, consented to by the Crown, was based on fresh evidence indicating the appellant, who has significant intellectual disabilities, did not understand the consequences of an NCR verdict at the time.

The Court of Appeal found the process leading to the NCR findings unfair and a miscarriage of justice.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the NCR verdicts, substituted findings of guilt for the original offences, and imposed a concurrent sentence of one day, with execution stayed.

The accused, V.Z., facing sexual assault charges, brought a Stage 1 application under Criminal Code sections 276, 278.92, and 278.93 to admit evidence of prior sexual activity and text messages with the complainant.

The defence argued this evidence was relevant to the issues of consent and honest but mistaken belief in consent, particularly regarding a pattern of consensual role-playing and rough sexual behaviour.

The Crown opposed, arguing insufficient detail and that past consent does not imply future consent.

The court dismissed the application regarding actual consent but granted a Stage 2 hearing (voir dire) for the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, finding the proposed evidence capable of being admissible for that purpose, provided a proper affidavit from the accused is filed.

The appellant was convicted of 10 sexual abuse offences against his former partner's daughter.

On appeal, he challenged the trial judge's admission of evidence related to pornography and his surveillance of the victim's grandmother's house, as well as the Crown's cross-examination of its own witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the impugned evidence was relevant and properly used for material issues or credibility, and that the procedure for refreshing witness memories was appropriate given the lack of objection at trial and absence of prejudice.

The Crown brought a motion to cancel D.L.'s bail pending appeal or, alternatively, for a bail review, after D.L. was charged with new sexual offences while on release.

The court determined the matter was properly a bail review based on a material change in circumstances.

The motion to cancel bail was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction under s. 524 of the Criminal Code, as the undertaking had expired.

However, the court ordered D.L.'s release under more restrictive terms and conditions, including "house arrest" with a surety, to address public safety and public confidence concerns, finding the existing release order inadequate.

The appellant, Bradley Priestap, appealed his convictions for multiple counts of voyeurism, break and enter to commit voyeurism, possession of instruments for break and enter, and prowling.

He abandoned his sentence appeal.

The grounds of appeal were: the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons, erred by summarily dismissing an alternate suspect theory, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficient, no error in limiting evidence on an alternate suspect due to lack of connection, and no demonstration of prejudice from alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant, Robert Gary Anderson, appealed his conviction for criminal harassment and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conduct regarding the jury charge, an alleged juror falling asleep, or the imposed two-year suspended sentence.

Both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal were dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society of Brant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking continued protection findings for the child T.E.H., an order for deemed custody to the paternal aunt L.H., specific access orders for the mother and siblings, no access for the mother's partner, and discretionary access for the father.

The court found T.E.H. to be in continuing need of protection due to risk of emotional harm.

It granted deemed custody to the paternal aunt, L.H., prioritizing the child's best interests and Indigenous cultural identity.

The court made temporary access orders for the mother and siblings, but declined to make a "no access" order for the mother's partner or a discretionary access order for the father, emphasizing the court's obligation to impose specific terms and conditions for access.

The accused, Steven Redden-Cox, was sentenced for one count of sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved forced intercourse and fellatio on a vulnerable, mildly intoxicated 18-year-old complainant, following initial consensual intimate touching.

The court characterized the offence as "predatory" and falling within the "date rape" category, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

Despite the accused's expression of regret and potential for rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of two years in penitentiary, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a no-contact order with the complainant.