Maria Anghelidis

The appellant appealed his convictions for historical sexual assault and sexual interference against a child complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred by characterizing the complainant's mother's evidence as 'corroborative' when it only confirmed peripheral details.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not use the term in its technical legal sense, but rather as confirmative of the complainant's general reliability, which was a permissible use of the evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences against children, which arose from guilty pleas.

He argued the pleas were involuntary due to pressure after his trial counsel was released and his adjournment request was denied, leaving him to face self-representation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to overcome the strong presumption that guilty pleas made in open court are voluntary.

The court held that emotional pressure and fear of self-representation did not impair his ability to make a conscious volitional choice.

The francophone appellant appealed his conviction, seeking to adduce fresh evidence that he was not informed of his right to apply for a trial in French under s. 530(3) of the Criminal Code.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Tayo Tompouba, the Court of Appeal found that non-compliance with s. 530(3) created a presumption that the appellant's language rights were violated.

The Crown conceded it could not rebut this presumption using the curative proviso.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial in French was ordered.

The appellant, convicted of 12 counts of fraud, brought a motion seeking directions and assistance in cross-examining police and civilian witnesses regarding the late disclosure of police emails.

The appellant sought production of redacted portions of emails generated between 2021 and 2024 concerning the disclosure process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it was a request for production governed by the Trotta test.

The court concluded there was no reasonable possibility that ordering production would result in admissible fresh evidence or assist in developing a successful ground of appeal, as there was no air of reality to the underlying abuse of process claim.

The appellant appealed his conviction for the first-degree murder of his wife, arguing that bad character evidence was improperly admitted and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to it.

The impugned evidence included a 'list of lies' the appellant wrote regarding his affair and an internet bookmark about compulsive lying.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while some of the evidence should not have been admitted, the trial judge's strong limiting instructions prevented any miscarriage of justice.

The court also rejected the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, concluding that trial counsel made reasonable tactical decisions and that the appellant suffered no prejudice given the overwhelming evidence of planning and deliberation.

The applicant, convicted of multiple sexual offences against a child including making sexually explicit material available to a child, sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching, and sentenced to five and a half years' imprisonment, sought bail pending his conviction and sentence appeals.

The applicant argued the appeal was not frivolous on two grounds: insufficiency of the trial judge's sparse six-page reasons and material misapprehension of evidence.

The Crown conceded no public safety or flight risk concerns but argued the appeal was frivolous and detention was necessary in the public interest.

The motion judge found the insufficiency of reasons argument was not frivolous and that the sparse reasons generated lower confidence in the justice of the conviction, diminishing the public interest in continued detention.

Bail was granted on terms agreed between the parties.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

In a criminal appeal involving fraud convictions, the moving party sought additional non-privileged disclosure to support proposed fresh-evidence abuse-of-process claims.

Applying prior case-management directions and existing disclosure rulings, the court found no basis for further compelled production on the issues properly before it and dismissed the motion.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual interference against two children under the age of 16 years.

The trial judge found that the appellant had committed sexual offences against both complainants in a park in Brantford on a single occasion in August 2019, and that he had also sexually abused one complainant over an extended period in the family home prior to the park incident.

The appellant was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on three grounds: alleged errors in the W.(D.) analysis, uneven scrutiny of evidence, and misapprehension of DNA evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from an Ontario Review Board disposition maintaining a detention order for a not criminally responsible accused.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible in 2016 for threats and assault involving an airsoft rifle, had been conditionally discharged in 2020 but returned to detention in 2023.

The Board maintained the detention order based on the appellant's chronic cannabis addiction and the treating psychiatrist's opinion that continued use would create a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable and that it failed to meaningfully consider less restrictive dispositions.

The court ordered a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed J.L.'s application for bail pending appeal from convictions for multiple offences, including sexual assault and intimate partner violence.

The court reviewed the three-part test under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, finding that the grounds of appeal did not clearly surpass the "not frivolous" standard and that public safety and enforceability concerns outweighed reviewability.

The court emphasized the applicant's persistent breaches of release conditions and the risk to the complainant, concluding that continued detention was necessary in the public interest.

The appeal was ordered expedited due to the time already served.

The appellant, Harvin Fraser, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding whether the complainant’s sexual interaction with the appellant included oral sex as well as sexual intercourse.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal, deferring to the trial judge’s credibility and reliability findings.

The appellant, C.O., appealed convictions for two counts of sexual interference involving his then partner’s 14-year-old daughter.

The appeal raised two main issues: whether the trial judge erred in her application of the principles from R. v. J.J.R.D. and whether she drew speculative inferences or misapprehended the evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s reasoning or application of the law, including her treatment of peripheral evidence and credibility findings.

The appellant’s application to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed as not meeting the legal threshold.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of firearms offences and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.

He appealed his sentence, arguing the sentencing judge failed to adequately quantify the mitigating effect of harsh pretrial conditions (Duncan credit) and sought a further reduction based on the sentence's impact on his family.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that under R. v. Marshall, harsh pretrial conditions are a mitigating factor to be weighed holistically, not a mathematical deduction.

The court also rejected the family impact argument due to insufficient evidence and the appellant's history.

The appellant appealed his conviction on two counts of sexual assault relating to two complainants at a house party.

He argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and provided insufficient reasons for her factual conclusions regarding his credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessments were sound, available on the record, and supported by clear reasons.

The appellant was convicted of criminal harassment, willfully altering computer data, and making available intimate images without consent, stemming from a "revenge porn" incident.

He appealed his convictions on three grounds: that the trial judge shifted the burden of proof, misapprehended the evidence, and erred in concluding guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the principles of burden of proof, did not misapprehend the evidence given the strong circumstantial case, and was entitled to find the appellant's text messages constituted implied admissions.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) in 2016, appealed a 2024 disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his detention.

The ORB concluded he remained a significant threat to public safety primarily due to ongoing cannabis use.

The Court of Appeal found that the ORB's reasons did not adequately explain how the legal test for "significant threat to the safety of the public" was met, particularly regarding the causal link between cannabis use, mental state deterioration, and a substantial risk of serious criminal harm.

The court noted the appellant's medication adherence and lack of recent violent behaviour, questioning the ORB's conclusion that intervention was the sole reason for no deterioration.

The appeal was allowed, the ORB's disposition set aside, and the matter remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.