Lisa Lynn Fineberg

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.

The accused was charged with injuring an animal contrary to section 445 of the Criminal Code and wilfully causing unnecessary suffering to an animal contrary to section 445.1 of the Criminal Code.

A small dog named Angel was brought to an emergency veterinary clinic with severe injuries including extensive bruising, internal bleeding, and severe head trauma.

The veterinarians concluded the injuries were consistent with multiple repeated blunt force trauma and could not have been caused by a cat attack as the accused claimed.

The accused had exclusive care of the dog while the owner was away.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts based on circumstantial evidence including his opportunity, his demonstrated frustration with the dog, his false explanation of the injuries, and his failure to seek veterinary care.

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).

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder after intentionally driving his SUV onto a sidewalk and killing the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment and set the period of parole ineligibility at 12 years.

The court considered the offender's extensive criminal record, the devastating impact on the victim's family, and the danger posed to the public as aggravating factors justifying an increase from the minimum 10-year period.

During a trial for second degree murder where the accused allegedly drove his SUV onto a sidewalk and killed the victim following a nightclub altercation, defence counsel requested that the defence of provocation be put to the jury.

The trial judge refused the request, finding no air of reality to the defence.

The judge concluded there was no evidence that an ordinary person would be deprived of self-control by the insults exchanged, no evidence the accused actually lost self-control, and no evidence that the insults or the accused's reaction were sudden.