Mary Ellen Hurman

The appellant, a former gym teacher and basketball coach, appealed his conviction for historical sexual assault against a former student.

The trial judge's decision rested entirely on a credibility assessment of the complainant and the appellant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge made material errors by misapprehending the appellant's evidence regarding his post-practice monitoring routine and by placing undue weight on the appellant's demeanour while testifying.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 4 years and 10 months.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Summers, the parties agreed the appellant was entitled to enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to time served, while noting the original sentence length was otherwise warranted.

The appellant appealed a Disposition Order of the Ontario Review Board that granted him a conditional discharge, arguing he should have received an absolute discharge.

The appellant contended the Board erred in finding he represented a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the Board's unanimous decision, which relied on evidence that the appellant would pose a significant risk without the control of a conditional discharge.

The appellant appealed his sentence for the sexual assault of an elderly woman in her home.

The sentence had been imposed following a joint submission after a partial preliminary inquiry.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle with the joint submission, noting the appellant's prior record for a similar offence and need for treatment.

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

Following the release of an endorsement allowing the appellant's appeal of his custodial sentence, counsel requested clarification on the status of a $218,000 restitution order imposed at trial.

The Court of Appeal issued a supplementary endorsement confirming that the restitution order continues in force.

The appellant appealed a 15-month custodial sentence for fraud.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence showing the appellant had made $103,000 in restitution and had successfully served a 12-month conditional sentence for an unrelated fraud charge since the original sentencing.

Relying on the fresh evidence and the Crown's previous position that the appellant was a suitable candidate for a conditional sentence, the Court allowed the appeal.

The custodial sentence was set aside and replaced with a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation, with ongoing restitution requirements.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in principle by assuming a conditional sentence was unavailable for the offence.

The majority of the Court of Appeal found no such error in the sentencing judge's reasons and, deferring to the sentencing judge's disposition, dismissed the appeal.

The dissenting judge would have found an error in principle and imposed a conditional sentence based on the appellant's positive pre-sentence report.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that a conditional sentence should have been granted.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge gave careful and extensive reasons for rejecting a conditional sentence on the facts of the case, which involved the threat of a knife against a vulnerable victim.

Finding no error in principle, the Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal.