Louis P. Strezos

The appellant appealed his convictions for unlawful confinement and sexual assault, as well as his sentence.

He argued the unlawful confinement verdict was inconsistent with a co-accused's acquittal and unreasonable, and maintained his innocence regarding the sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the verdicts were supported by the evidence and the sentence was within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed her sentence of 23 months in jail and a restitution order of $7,781.29 for driving-related offences and breach of probation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the custodial sentence, noting the appellant's horrendous record of drinking and driving offences and lifetime driving bans.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part by deleting the restitution order, as the trial judge failed to consider the appellant's ability to pay.

The appellant appealed his convictions for three bank robberies, arguing the trial judge erred in relying on contaminated eyewitness identification evidence and improperly admitting out-of-court statements for the truth of their contents.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge failed to consider the impact of flawed police photo line-up procedures and improperly accepted a witness's out-of-court statement without applying the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso, allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the discretion exercised by the sentencing judge.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The respondent challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Code DNA warrant provisions authorizing seizure of bodily substances for forensic analysis.

The Court of Appeal held that the challenge was properly resolved under s. 8 of the Charter, and that if the regime satisfied s. 8 scrutiny it could not be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 on the self-incrimination theory advanced.

The court found the statutory scheme contained substantial judicial and privacy safeguards, upheld the ex parte warrant structure, and rejected the lower court's attempt to read in a notice requirement.

Fresh evidence concerning updated DNA technology undermined the basis for striking down the hair-sample provision, which was reinstated.

The cross-appeal was dismissed and the declaratory application was dismissed.