Andrea Baiasu

The appellant appealed a five-year sentence for aggravated sexual assault involving forced sexual intercourse with a pregnant woman.

The appellant had prior convictions for sexual assault but received suspended sentences with probation in 2006.

The trial judge identified the appellant's intellectual limitations and mental health status as mitigating factors but did not adequately explain why these factors did not warrant a sentence in the lower range.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was not properly calibrated to account for the significant mitigating factor of diminished intellectual capacity and reduced the sentence to four years.

The appellant, a self-represented accused charged with failure to comply with a recognizance, sought directions from a single judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appellant requested that the trial judge hear outstanding motions before the appeal from the dismissal of the motion to quash the bench warrant was heard, and that the motions be expedited.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the requested relief fell outside the court's jurisdiction as it had no nexus to the appeal before it and was not authorized by the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's dismissal of his Charter application, in which he sought a recommendation that the Justice Minister award him $35 million in damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming its previous decision in Re Starz that the ORB has no jurisdiction to award or recommend damages.

The self-represented appellant, who is subject to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board, brought a motion to review a single judge's order refusing his request to adjourn his appeal hearing.

The appellant argued the single judge misapprehended facts and considered irrelevant factors, and claimed he could not prepare his factum due to poisonous gas being injected into his condominium.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no basis to interfere with the single judge's decision.

The court noted the statutory obligation to hear such appeals as soon as practicable and that the appellant was not required to file a factum.

The appellant appealed his fraud conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable due to unreliable bookkeeping by a witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the bookkeeping irrelevant to the fraud finding.

The trial judge was entitled to rely on other witness evidence and the defence's admission that the appellant received the money from the joint venture.

The appellant appealed an order of the Ontario Review Board detaining him in a medium security facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's determination that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety and that detention was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition was reasonable based on the evidence.

This is an addendum to an appeal book endorsement that reduced the appellant's custodial sentence to two years less a day.

The Court of Appeal ordered a further 10-week reduction to the sentence to reflect five weeks of pre-sentence custody credited on a two-for-one basis, which had been granted by the sentencing judge but inadvertently omitted from the initial appellate decision.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of stolen property, having been acquitted of robbery and forcible confinement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding strong evidence that the appellant knew the machine in his possession was stolen.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, as the trial judge erred in assuming a two-year floor for the offence.

The three-year sentence was deemed outside the appropriate range and reduced to two years less a day.