Lucy Anne Cecchetto

The appellants were convicted of kidnapping, extortion, and assault following a home invasion involving sexual assault and confinement.

They appealed their respective sentences of 13 and 12 years' imprisonment, arguing the trial judge failed to consider mitigating factors and the parity principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the sentences fit given the heinous nature of the crimes and the trial judge's proper application of sentencing principles, including denunciation and deterrence.

The applicant, an Aboriginal man, applied for release on bail pending a new trial for second degree murder and firearm offences.

He had been in custody for almost seven years.

The Court of Appeal had previously quashed his convictions and ordered a new trial due to improper jury instructions on self-defence.

Applying Gladue principles and the three grounds for detention under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code, the court found the applicant met his onus.

The court noted his strong community support, model institutional record, and the weakened Crown case.

The application was allowed, and the applicant was released on a $5,000 cash deposit and sureties.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, uttering a death threat, and choking, as well as his 4.5-year sentence.

He argued the trial judge should have recused himself for having presided over a prior bail review, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and no errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments or application of the W.(D.) framework.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 4.5-year term was fit given the violence, threats, and the appellant's criminal record.

The accused appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a child complainant and a nine‑year custodial sentence.

He argued that the trial judge erred in refusing an application under the Criminal Code for production of the complainant’s Children’s Aid Society and counselling records, asserting the records were needed to challenge credibility due to inconsistencies between statements.

The Court of Appeal held that the accused failed to establish the statutory threshold of “likely relevance,” emphasizing that speculative assertions or hopes of finding prior inconsistent statements do not justify production of confidential therapeutic records.

The court also rejected the argument that the sentencing judge made factual findings inconsistent with the jury’s acquittals on related charges.

The sentence was upheld as fit given the breach of trust, the complainant’s young age, and the prolonged and intrusive nature of the offences.

The appellant was convicted of abducting her child in contravention of a custody order.

She appealed, arguing the trial judge erred by refusing to leave the defence of necessity to the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the defence because the appellant had other reasonable legal alternatives, such as participating in the family court proceedings to address her concerns about the child's safety, rather than abandoning the process and abducting the child.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sexual assault.

He appealed the convictions on the grounds that his statement to the police was obtained in violation of his Charter rights and that the trial judge made several errors in his charge to the jury.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant was not detained at the time of his police interview, as he voluntarily cooperated and was not a suspect.

The Court also held that while the trial judge should have given a fabrication instruction regarding the appellant's false statement, the omission did not affect the verdict given the compelling circumstantial evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Ontario Court (General Division).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit and noting unanimous opinions that there was a significant risk the appellant would reoffend.

The appellant appealed his convictions for fraud and theft, arguing for the first time on appeal that the Crown prosecutor was in a conflict of interest for having previously represented him on an assault charge.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence but found no actual conflict of interest or prejudice, as the matters were independent and no relevant confidential information was used.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, upholding the custodial sentence due to the seriousness of the frauds committed against a charitable institution.