Natalya Odorico

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault for stabbing the complainant four times during a physical altercation at a homeless shelter.

The Crown alleged the defendant initiated the confrontation and used excessive force.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting the complainant attacked him unprovoked and he stabbed in response to being pinned to the ground and punched repeatedly in the head.

The court found the defendant not guilty, determining that while the defendant initiated the confrontation by following the complainant, once the physical fight began, the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe force was being used against him, acted with the subjective purpose of self-protection, and the use of force was reasonable in the circumstances given the defendant's inability to escape and the ongoing threat posed by the larger, stronger complainant.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of William Whatcott on a charge of willfully promoting hatred against gay men, stemming from the distribution of flyers at the 2016 Toronto Pride Parade.

The trial judge had acquitted Whatcott, finding the flyers did not constitute hate speech and excluding expert evidence on anti-gay discrimination tropes and evidence of prior discreditable conduct.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding the trial judge erred in excluding the expert evidence, which was necessary to understand how the flyers perpetuated negative stereotypes and promoted hatred in a broader social and historical context.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and breach of probation involving a 13-year-old complainant.

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge erred in applying the "mistaken belief in age" defence under s. 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code, specifically whether the appellant took "all reasonable steps" to ascertain the complainant's age.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant failed to take all reasonable steps, considering various contextual factors such as the age difference, complainant's appearance, living situation, and the appellant's suspicions about her online profile.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for robbery in 2006, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Board maintained his detention, removed indirectly supervised community privileges, and denied a transfer to another facility, following his conviction for child pornography.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding its refusal to transfer and removal of community access reasonable given the appellant's lack of insight and ongoing risk, deferring to the Board's expertise.

The appellants, convicted of aggravated assault, appealed both their convictions and their 15-month custodial sentences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's assessment of causation of injuries.

However, the court granted leave to appeal the sentences, concluding that the trial judge erred in principle by automatically ruling out a conditional sentence due to the violence involved and by failing to adequately weigh all relevant sentencing objectives, including restraint and rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal substituted the custodial sentences with 15-month conditional sentences, including a period of house arrest, while maintaining probation and ancillary orders.

The appellant, found unfit to stand trial by the Ontario Court of Justice, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) subsequent disposition finding him unfit and ordering his detention.

The Court of Appeal confirmed its jurisdiction to hear appeals from ORB findings of unfitness that result in a disposition, distinguishing them from findings of fitness which do not.

On the merits, the court found the ORB's decision to be reasonable, giving appropriate weight to psychiatric assessments and counsel's representations regarding the appellant's ability to instruct counsel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Steve D’Silva, appealed his convictions for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault involving a 12-year-old victim.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's credibility findings, particularly regarding the victim's testimony that she informed the appellant of her age, and the application of the principles in R. v. W.(D.).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the appellant had actual knowledge the victim was underage.

The court emphasized the high level of appellate deference owed to trial judges' credibility assessments and found no error in the trial judge's reasoning or application of legal principles.

The applicant, K.K., sought bail pending appeal after being convicted of sexual assault, uttering threats, and assault against his domestic partner.

The application was dismissed.

The court applied the three-part test for bail pending appeal under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, focusing on the public interest ground.

It found that the enforceability interest outweighed the reviewability interest due to the seriousness of the domestic violence crimes, the applicant's history of violence and non-compliance with court orders, a high risk of re-offending in domestic violence, and the appeal grounds not significantly surpassing the "not frivolous" standard.

Concerns were also raised about the proposed surety, who was a recent victim of the applicant's violence.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the timing and location of the assaults.

The complainant testified about assaults occurring between 1995 and 1999, when she was 11-13 years old.

A key inconsistency involved a distinctive tattoo on the appellant, which the complainant claimed to have seen throughout the assaults, but which the trial judge found was acquired after the appellant moved out and the abuse allegedly stopped.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was entitled to reconcile inconsistencies in the complainant's memory regarding precise timing and location, while still accepting the essential nature of the sexual assaults.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, D.B., appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual touching of his stepdaughter, A.G., contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended important evidence, failed to reconcile material inconsistencies, unevenly scrutinized evidence, and provided inadequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error, concluding that the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, including the victim's letter, was reasonable and did not unfairly scrutinize the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained a detention order and denied an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued the Board erred in failing to grant an absolute discharge, giving weight to previous appellate findings, and considering the vigour of counsel's submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety was reasonable, based on expert evidence of likely relapse and criminal conduct without supervision.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for attempted murder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

He argued the ORB's finding of a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and presented fresh evidence of improved stability and a developed therapeutic relationship with his community psychiatrist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's original decision reasonable at the time it was made.

While admitting the fresh evidence, the majority declined to grant an absolute discharge, preferring that the ORB, as the expert body, make that determination at an already scheduled early review hearing.

A dissenting judge would have granted the absolute discharge based on the fresh evidence.

The appellant, Bradley Cable, appealed a disposition from the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, following a finding of not criminally responsible for various offences.

Cable argued the Board erred in not considering a conditional discharge as the least onerous option, despite conceding he posed a substantial public safety risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was amply supported by evidence, including psychiatric reports indicating severe untreated mental health issues and a high risk of reoffending, and that there was no air of reality to the possibility of a conditional discharge.

The appellant, Tracy Robinson, appealed convictions for causing damage by fire to property and arson with intent to defraud after a judge-alone trial.

The prosecution's case was circumstantial, relying heavily on an Ontario Fire Marshal investigator's expert opinion that the fire was deliberately set.

The defence presented a counter-expert suggesting an electrical cause.

The trial judge accepted the prosecution's expert and found motive and opportunity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual and credibility findings, and no unreasonable verdicts.

While the trial judge erred in enunciating the R. v. W.(D.) test, the court found he applied it properly in context.

The appellant, Clayton Freamo, appealed his conviction for sexual interference, alleging a faulty credibility analysis by the trial judge.

The appellant argued that the trial judge incorrectly approached the credibility assessment as a "credibility contest" and failed to adequately explain inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons, when read holistically, demonstrated a correct understanding and application of the burden of proof and a careful assessment of the evidence, including the selective belief of parts of the complainant's testimony.

The appellant, Boris Rajkovic, appealed a global sentence of 13 years for six offences, including kidnapping, bank robbery, and discharging a firearm at police.

He challenged the fitness of the sentence, the imposition of a consecutive sentence for discharging a firearm, and the sufficiency of credit for pre-trial custody conditions, including alleged poor medical care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the global sentence fit given the gravity and number of offences, upholding the consecutive sentence due to the distinct nature of the firearm discharge, and affirming the sentencing judge's decision on pre-trial credit as the medical records did not support the appellant's claims.

The appellant, Mahmoud Hannora, appealed his total sentence of seven years for unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and receiving material benefit from sexual services.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by failing to properly apply the totality principle to the overall sentence, which resulted in a sentence that outstripped the appellant's overall culpability, especially considering his positive prospects for rehabilitation and remorse.

The Court reduced the total sentence from seven years to four years by making the sentence for receiving material benefit concurrent to the other two counts.

The victim fine surcharge was also set aside.

The appellant appealed his conviction for break and enter and theft, which was based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence, while suspicious, was equally consistent with the appellant becoming involved with the stolen vehicle after the break-in and thefts had occurred.

The court determined that the inferences necessary to prove possession of the vehicle or participation in the initial crimes could not be reasonably drawn, and therefore, the trier of fact could not reasonably be satisfied that guilt was the only reasonable conclusion.

The appeal was allowed, and acquittals were entered.

The appellant, Manuel Esquivel-Benitez, appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial, finding three errors by the trial judge: (1) an R. v. W.(D.) error in assessing credibility by treating it as a contest between the complainant and the appellant, failing to consider reasonable doubt on the evidence as a whole; (2) failure to meaningfully address the complainant's possible motive to fabricate; and (3) improper reliance on the appellant's presence in the courtroom to negatively assess his credibility, suggesting he tailored his evidence.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 6, 2019.

The appellant, declared not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, appealed a conditional discharge disposition that prohibited him from driving and required abstinence from alcohol.

The appellant argued the Board's conclusion that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, particularly given his suspended driver's licence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition reasonable and supported by evidence, but expressed concern about the lack of information available regarding the licence suspension and directed that detailed information be obtained for the next review.