Lisa Lynn Fineberg

The appellant was convicted of child luring and related offences after responding to a police-created ad on an online escort website.

The appeal turned on whether 'Project Raphael', a buyer-side undercover sting operation run by the York Regional Police on Backpage.com, constituted a bona fide inquiry under the entrapment doctrine.

The Court held that the police had reasonable suspicion over a sufficiently precise virtual space — namely, ads within the York Region escort subdirectory of Backpage that emphasized extreme youth — and that the child luring offences offered were rationally connected and proportionate to the s. 286.1(2) offence the police suspected was occurring.

The appeal was dismissed and the stay of proceedings denied.

The appellant was one of 104 individuals arrested in Project Raphael, an undercover online police investigation targeting the buyer side of the juvenile sex work market.

He responded to an ad posted by an undercover officer on Backpage.com, was told the officer was 15 years old, and was arrested upon arriving at a designated hotel room.

He was convicted by jury on three child luring-related offences and applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment.

Following the companion decision in R. v. Ramelson, 2022 SCC 44, the Court held that Project Raphael constituted a bona fide inquiry and dismissed the entrapment application and the appeal.

The appellant was arrested as part of a large-scale online police investigation targeting the buyer side of the juvenile sex work market.

He responded to an undercover officer's ad on an escort website, and after being told the purported escort was 15 years old, attended a hotel room where he was arrested and convicted of child luring-related offences.

He sought a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment, arguing the police lacked reasonable suspicion over a sufficiently precise space and that officers should be limited to offering only the exact offences they suspect, not rationally connected ones.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, applying its concurrent reasons in R. v. Ramelson, 2022 SCC 44, and holding that Project Raphael was a bona fide inquiry and the appellant was not entrapped.

The appellant was one of 104 people arrested as part of Project Raphael, an online police investigation targeting buyers in the juvenile sex work market.

The appellant responded to an advertisement on Backpage.com and, after the undercover officer disclosed being underage, attended a hotel room and was arrested.

He was convicted by jury on child luring and communicating to obtain sexual services from a minor.

The appellant sought a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment, arguing both opportunity-based entrapment (no bona fide inquiry, no personal reasonable suspicion) and inducement-based entrapment (personal vulnerability from undiagnosed Asperger's Syndrome).

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Project Raphael was a bona fide inquiry per the companion case R. v. Ramelson, 2022 SCC 44, and that the inducement framework revision argument was better left for another case as no error in the findings below was demonstrated.

The appellant, Juan Solorzano Sanclemente, appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the blended sentence imposed.

The appeal raised four grounds: the trial judge's dismissal of an application to introduce evidence of extrinsic and contemporaneous sexual activity of the complainant under s. 276 of the Criminal Code; the failure to instruct the jury on the defence of mistaken belief in communicated consent; the failure to exclude a video recorded interview for a breach of s. 10(b) of the Charter; and an unbalanced jury charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding both the conviction and sentence.

The court found no error in the trial judge's application of s. 276, the air of reality test for the mistaken belief defence, the Charter s. 10 analysis, or the fairness of the jury charge.

The appellant, Rejean Perron, appealed the imposition of a ten-year long-term supervision order following convictions for sexual assault, forcible confinement, and use of an imitation firearm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the sentencing judge not explicitly detailing why a ten-year order was imposed over a shorter term, the record and the psychiatrist's report, which indicated a high risk of recidivism and an undiagnosed behavioural pattern, justified the maximum period of supervision.

The court also noted the possibility of future reduction or termination of the order.

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, Erhard Haniffa, appealed his convictions for child luring and communicating to obtain sexual services from a minor, arguing entrapment, misapplication of the Kienapple principle, and s. 11(b) Charter delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals regarding conviction, Kienapple, entrapment, and s. 11(b) applications.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, setting aside the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a stayed count and remitting the matter for sentencing on the correct count.

This appeal arose from convictions for child luring and communicating to obtain sexual services from a minor, stemming from Project Raphael, an undercover police investigation targeting demand for juvenile sexual services.

The appellant, Temitope Dare, appealed his convictions on two grounds: that the trial judge erred in jury instructions regarding the mental element of belief (linking it to reading text messages) and that the trial judge erred in dismissing his entrapment application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds, finding that the jury instructions, when read holistically, were not misleading regarding the requirement of belief, and rejecting the entrapment argument based on reasons provided in a related case.

This is a Crown appeal concerning entrapment in an undercover police operation (Project Raphael) targeting individuals seeking sexual services from juveniles online.

The trial judge initially dismissed the respondent's entrapment application but later granted a stay of proceedings after the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Ahmad.

The Court of Appeal examined whether the police conducted a bona fide inquiry and properly applied the entrapment doctrine in virtual spaces.

The court found the police had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity on Backpage and that the investigation's scope was sufficiently narrowed, despite a large number of "innocent" persons being virtue-tested.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the stay of proceedings.

This is an appeal from conviction and sentence.

The appellant, Muhammad Abbas Jaffer, was convicted of child luring and communicating to obtain sexual services from a minor, stemming from an undercover police operation (Project Raphael).

He appealed on grounds of entrapment, arguing both opportunity-based and inducement-based entrapment, and that his sentence was unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding that the police operation did not constitute entrapment and that the trial judge's sentence was fit, adequately considering aggravating and mitigating factors.

The accused, a Taekwondo coach charged with sexual assault, applied for the production of interview recordings and notes held by the CBC involving one of the complainants.

The court determined that the common law O'Connor regime applied rather than the Criminal Code s. 278.1 regime, as the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in statements made for a television documentary.

Balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the media's freedom of the press under the Vice Media framework, the court ordered the CBC to produce limited, highly relevant excerpts of the interviews and notes.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for prior offences, appealed a 2019 Ontario Review Board disposition that continued his conditional discharge and imposed new alcohol and drug testing requirements.

The appellant argued the Board erred in its application of the significant threat test and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's determination that the appellant posed a significant threat was not supported by the evidence and lacked proper analysis regarding the degree of risk or gravity of apprehended harm.

The court emphasized that factors such as lack of insight, potential medication non-compliance, or substance abuse do not automatically establish a significant threat without specific analysis of the risk of serious criminal conduct.

The appeal was allowed, and an absolute discharge was granted, although the issue was rendered moot by a subsequent 2020 Board decision granting an absolute discharge.

In a judge-alone criminal proceeding involving sexual abuse allegations by teenage athletes against their taekwondo coach, the court considered both a Crown application to admit count-to-count and third-party similar fact evidence and a defence motion to sever counts involving one complainant.

Applying the similar fact framework, the court held that the evidence of other athletes was highly probative of the actus reus and of the controlling trust-based environment in which the abuse was alleged to have occurred, and that the Crown had disproved collusion on a balance of probabilities.

Applying the severance principles, the court nevertheless concluded that trial fairness required severance because the accused had an objectively justifiable intention to testify on one set of counts but not the others.

After the accused confirmed he would not testify on the remaining counts, the counts involving one complainant were severed and that complainant was barred from testifying as a similar fact witness in the ongoing trial.

Criminal trial arising from allegations that a high-level martial arts coach sexually abused a teenage athlete over a period of years within a coach-athlete relationship marked by control, secrecy, and grooming.

The court addressed delayed disclosure, the complainant's university essay about another coach's sexual offences, and multiple inconsistencies in the complainant's accounts, but concluded these issues did not undermine her credibility or the reliability of her evidence on the core allegations.

Similar fact evidence from other athletes was admitted for limited purposes and provided some contextual support, though the court placed little weight on it in proving the charged acts.

Applying the W.(D.) framework to the accused's denial, the court held the Crown proved all 10 counts beyond a reasonable doubt, while reserving on whether some counts should be stayed as duplicative.

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 accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a motion for disclosure of communications between the complainant and the CBC regarding a proposed documentary.

The Crown and third parties argued the communications were protected under s. 278 of the Criminal Code due to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court found that while there was a subjective expectation of privacy, the communications regarding the scope and terms of the CBC interviews were directly relevant to the defence's O'Connor application.

The court ordered the disclosure of relevant emails and texts, excising irrelevant personal details.