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.

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 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.

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.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) in 2002, appealed a conditional discharge order issued by the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued that the Board's finding of a "significant threat to the safety of the public" was unreasonable and that the Board misapprehended the sufficiency of available civil mechanisms to manage his risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion on "significant threat" to be within the range of reasonable outcomes, considering factors such as the appellant's major mental illness, serious index offences, lack of insight, and stated intention to discontinue medication if absolutely discharged.

The second ground of appeal regarding civil mechanisms was not pressed.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting an acquaintance following a night out at a club.

The complainant testified that the accused pushed her into a bedroom, forcibly removed her clothing, digitally penetrated her, and attempted to force her to perform oral sex despite her repeated verbal and physical resistance.

The accused provided a contrasting account, claiming the interaction was consensual until he made an offensive comment about her body odour, which caused the complainant to leave.

A key witness testified to observing consensual physical contact between the parties prior to entry into the bedroom, which contradicted the complainant's account of being pushed.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) test and found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt based on the totality of evidence, including credibility concerns about the complainant's testimony regarding alcohol consumption and the corroborating evidence of the third-party witness.

The accused was charged with assaulting a police officer causing bodily harm.

The incident occurred on New Year's Eve 2013/January 1, 2014 near Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto.

The Crown alleged that the accused head-butted Officer Bragg, causing facial fractures and other injuries.

The accused testified that he fell to the ground with Officer Bragg, and that Officer Bragg's head struck his head as they fell.

The court found that the evidence presented four completely different versions of events from the officers and the accused, making it impossible to determine how the injuries were sustained.

The accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt.

An Aboriginal offender with a lengthy history of property crimes and breaches of court orders was sentenced in the Gladue court.

The offender had demonstrated a pattern of minor criminality spanning several months, committing thefts from businesses and repeatedly breaching probation and bail conditions.

Despite previous sentences including jail time, probation, and conditional sentences, the offender showed no signs of rehabilitation or deterrence.

The court imposed a 14-month conditional sentence to be served in the community, emphasizing the application of Gladue principles while balancing public protection and the need for accountability.

The offender subsequently breached the conditional sentence but later voluntarily requested incarceration to access mental health treatment at a specialized facility.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision on a charge of first-degree murder in the death of Leanne Freeman on November 29, 2011.

The Crown sought to commit both accused for trial on first-degree murder charges.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence for second-degree murder but argued insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation for first-degree murder.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both accused for trial on first-degree murder charges, relying on two alternative theories: (1) planning and deliberation, and (2) murder committed during unlawful confinement under Criminal Code section 231(5)(e).