Lisa Fineberg

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and breach of probation after stabbing a victim multiple times in a mall.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence.

The court reviewed the offender's extensive criminal record, psychiatric profile, and expert evidence regarding treatability and risk management.

The court declined to designate the offender as a dangerous offender, finding that the risk to the public could be managed in the community with strict conditions.

The offender was designated a long-term offender and sentenced to a 14-year determinate term (less 7 years pre-trial custody credit) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible in 2007, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention with privileges.

He argued the Board erred in finding he remained a significant threat and that there was an impasse in finding community housing due to his substance use.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's factual misapprehension regarding recent charges was immaterial and upheld the finding that he remained a significant threat.

The Court dismissed the appeal but amended the disposition to include the Board's direction from its reasons that the hospital look at housing that does not require abstinence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and simple assault against his stepson and son, respectively.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in her assessment of the complainants' motive to fabricate and the potential tainting of their evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge's explanation of the motive issue was problematic, it did not amount to a palpable and overriding error, and there was no evidence of collusion or tainting between the complainants.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by the Superior Court of Justice.

Prior to the resolution of the appeal, the appellant died.

Counsel for the appellant filed a Notice of Abatement, and the Court of Appeal ordered the file closed as abated.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, mischief, and sexual assault against his former domestic partner.

The complainant had recanted her allegations prior to trial and testified for the Crown, adopting her recantation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in finding the actus reus of sexual assault was proven based on the complainant's initial statement to police.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's application of the W.(D.) principles, his assessment of the complainant's motive to fabricate, or his decision to allow the Crown latitude in cross-examining the complainant on her prior statement.

The applicant sought leave to appeal his six-year sentence for sexual offences and drug trafficking, and applied for release pending appeal, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and his health conditions.

The motion judge granted leave to appeal sentence but dismissed the application for release.

The judge found the appeal had little merit and would likely be determined before the sentence expired.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to show his detention was not necessary in the public interest, given his history of breaching recognizances, lack of insight into his offences, and the serious nature of the crimes against children.

The appellant appealed convictions for two counts each of sexual assault and sexual interference against the daughters of his former girlfriend, alleging numerous errors in the trial judge’s credibility assessments.

He argued that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny between the complainants’ testimony and his own, misapprehended evidence, improperly relied on demeanour, and failed to properly consider delayed disclosure and alleged motives to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge’s credibility findings were well supported by the evidentiary record and entitled to significant deference.

The court found no misapprehension of evidence, no improper reliance on demeanour, and no reversible error in the treatment of delayed disclosure or similar fact evidence.

The verdicts were not unreasonable and the appeal was dismissed.