Lou Strezos

The applicant, convicted of fraud and sentenced to 5.5 years in prison with significant restitution and fines, applied for the appointment of counsel for his appeal under s. 684 of the Criminal Code after being denied Legal Aid.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the proposed grounds of appeal primarily contested factual findings and lacked merit.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to adequately explain the whereabouts of the defrauded funds or prove his lack of financial means, and the court concluded he was capable of advancing his own arguments given his business experience and the materials prepared by his trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario appointed amicus curiae to vet ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised by four appellants.

The amicus was directed to assess the specificity of the grounds alleged and determine whether the claims, if established, were capable of constituting ineffective assistance of counsel.

The amicus was ordered to report back to the court by July 11, 2016, to facilitate moving the appeals forward.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on how to assess the credibility of the complainant, who was 12 at the time of the events and 17 at trial.

The trial judge instructed the jury that they were considering 'the memory of a 12 year old'.

The majority of the Court of Appeal held this instruction was an error in law as it could have confused the jury into assessing the complainant's credibility on non-peripheral matters as if she were 12 years old.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.