Nicholas A. Xynnis

The appellants challenged a criminal appeal judgment from the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal and delivered an oral ruling the same day.

The Court held that the appeal should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons of the majority below.

The intervener participated, but the dispositive issue was resolved by adopting the appellate majority's reasoning.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed D.C.'s appeal from convictions for sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in failing to declare a mistrial and in assessing the evidence.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s approach, including his assessment of the complainant’s credibility and the pattern of verdicts.

The court also rejected arguments regarding consent and the sufficiency of the evidence, upholding the convictions.

Nick Chrysostomou pled guilty to assault causing bodily harm after attacking a man with a hatchet during a road rage incident in Toronto.

The Court considered aggravating factors including the deliberate use of a weapon, the serious injury caused, and the public nature of the offence.

Mitigating factors included Chrysostomou’s lack of prior record, guilty plea, and rehabilitative potential.

The Court rejected a conditional discharge as contrary to public interest but imposed a 6-month Conditional Sentence Order with strict conditions, followed by 18 months probation, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, restraint, and rehabilitation.

The appellants, David Case and Celine Loyer, appealed their convictions for sexual assault, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable due to the complainant's "flashback" memory being unreliable.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's memory and the confirmatory evidence to be reasonable and not fundamentally flawed.

The dissenting judge would have ordered a new trial, concluding that the trial judge's reasoning regarding the reliability of the "sleeping flashback" was circular and illogical, and that the confirmatory evidence was overstated.

Both sentence appeals regarding a no-contact condition were also dismissed.

The appellant, Michael Cady, appealed his convictions for possession of property obtained by crime and laundering proceeds of crime.

His wife had defrauded her employer of over $1 million, depositing funds into a joint account.

The trial judge found that the appellant either knew the funds were illegally obtained or was wilfully blind to their origin, citing several "red flags" including his wife's prior fraud conviction, bankruptcies, and the couple's lavish spending inconsistent with their declared income.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of wilful blindness, stating it was not inconsistent with the appellant's claim of deferring to his wife's financial management, especially given his admission of suspicion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Gary Willett, appealed his convictions for child abduction, assault, and theft over $5,000.

He brought a fresh evidence application, including the complainant's testimony from his wife's separate trial, which significantly differed from previous evidence.

The Crown conceded the fresh evidence should be admitted and the convictions quashed.

The Court of Appeal applied the Palmer criteria, finding the new evidence admissible as it undermined the complainant's credibility and the reliability of his original testimony, thereby affecting the safety of all verdicts.

Consequently, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered on all counts.

The appellant, Joseph Grant-Stuart, appealed his conviction for importing cocaine and possessing it for the purpose of trafficking, and sought leave to appeal his nine-year sentence.

The conviction appeal argued errors in the trial judge's response to a jury question on reasonable doubt and improper Crown closing submissions.

The sentence appeal argued the sentence was unfit due to insufficient weight given to mitigating factors like age and health.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's jury instructions or the Crown's submissions, and that the sentence was fit and within the appropriate range for drug importing cases.

The appellant appealed convictions for robbery, attempted robbery, using an imitation firearm, and uttering a threat, arguing the trial judge's jury charge was inadequate.

The appellant contended the charge failed to relate evidence to the issues and did not adequately address exculpatory evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge sufficient given the short, straightforward trial and the absence of objections from counsel during the pre-vetting process.

This is a summary conviction appeal concerning the mens rea for the offence of failing or refusing to provide a breath sample.

The respondent, Roberto DeCaire, was acquitted at trial after the judge found a reasonable doubt as to whether his failure to provide a breath sample was deliberate, citing severe sciatic pain.

The Crown appealed, arguing an error in law regarding the applicable mens rea standard.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not err in law by applying a standard that required proof of intentional failure or refusal, consistent with a harmonious reading of conflicting authorities.

The accused was charged on a five-count indictment with three allegations of sexual assault, a charge of assault causing bodily harm, and another charge of simple assault against the complainant, his former track athlete and later wife.

The court applied the W.(D.) test for credibility and reliability, noting the significant time lapse since the incidents.

The court dismissed two sexual assault counts (Counts 1 and 5) due to insufficient detail and conflicting accounts, which raised reasonable doubt.

However, the court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on one count of sexual assault (Count 2) related to an incident at a hotel when the complainant was 16, rejecting the accused's evasive testimony.

The court also found the accused guilty on one count of assault causing bodily harm (Count 4) for pushing the complainant down stairs, causing her hand to go through glass, and on one count of assault (Count 3) for twice forcing her naked out of their apartment in winter conditions.

The court emphasized the accused's manipulative and controlling behavior throughout the marriage as corroborative evidence of his animus.

The appellant, Eric German Flores, appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the four-year sentence imposed.

The appeal from conviction raised issues regarding the trial judge's instructions to the jury on the use of post-event evidence, specifically the complainant's sexual assault examination and prophylactic treatment, and a text message sent by the appellant.

The appeal from sentence challenged the trial judge's finding that the offence involved a breach of trust.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no prejudice in the jury instructions and that the sentence was within the appropriate range, emphasizing that the appellant took advantage of a vulnerable person.

The victim surcharge imposed at trial was set aside.

The appellant was convicted of invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and sexual interference involving his step-son, with allegations occurring when the complainant was between 8 and 13 years old.

He was acquitted of assault.

The appellant appealed on five grounds: inconsistent verdicts, admissibility of his videotaped statement to police, jury instructions on credibility across counts, jury instructions on consent, and jury instructions on prior inconsistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the verdicts reconcilable, the admission of evidence proper under s. 653.1 of the Criminal Code, and the jury instructions adequate and not prejudicial.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, sought an order for the committal of Tony Dada Akinbobola and Harry Cole for extradition to the USA for prosecution related to a fraudulent lottery scheme targeting elderly victims.

The court dismissed the application against Akinbobola due to insufficient evidence, finding that the allegations were bald assertions lacking sufficient detail or connection to him, and that the evidence did not establish he was the actual user of alleged email accounts or phone numbers.

However, the court granted the application against Cole, finding sufficient evidence to meet the test for committal, despite arguments regarding the reliability of accomplice and confidential witness testimony.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting a nine-year-old complainant.

The appeal raised several grounds, including allegations of unequal assessment of evidence, consideration of un-tendered evidence, failure to assess reliability, impermissible inferences, misapprehension of motive evidence, and incorrect application of the burden of proof.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility and reliability assessments were entitled to deference and that no errors in law or fact were made that would warrant overturning the conviction.

The appellant appealed his conviction for multiple frauds arising from a credit card scam.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility assessment, arguing she erred in finding his testimony unbelievable and preferring the testimony of witness Miller.

The appellant also argued the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge properly assessed credibility with appropriate deference to witness evidence, and that the Crown's case had considerable strength with evidence of the appellant's involvement in key steps of the fraudulent activity.

The appellants appealed their convictions for assault causing bodily harm and, for one appellant, threatening death.

The court upheld the convictions for assault causing bodily harm, finding the trial judge's assessment of credibility and reliability, and rejection of self-defence, to be reasonable and supported by evidence.

However, the conviction for threatening death was set aside as unsupported by evidence.

Four appellants appealed their convictions for fraud over $5,000 and conspiracy to commit fraud, as well as a count of knowingly contributing to an activity of a criminal organization.

The convictions arose from a large-scale telemarketing advance fee scheme operating from multiple "boiler rooms" in the Toronto area, where telemarketers defrauded American residents by falsely promising loans from fictitious lenders and demanding advance payments.

The Crown's case relied on fingerprint evidence, surveillance evidence, and the appellants' presence at the locations.

The appellants challenged various aspects of the trial, including jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and the reasonableness of the verdicts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all conviction appeals, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's conduct or instructions, and concluding that the verdicts were reasonable on the evidence.

The appellant appealed both his conviction for aggravated assault and his sentence of 18 months imprisonment plus two years probation.

The conviction arose from an incident in which the appellant's motor vehicle struck and severely injured a pedestrian in a parking lot outside a pub, following an altercation with another patron.

The appellant argued the collision was inadvertent, while the Crown alleged it was intentional.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the trial judge's factual findings and credibility determinations were reasonable and entitled to deference, and the sentence was fit and within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for two counts of assault and one count of uttering threats.

He argued that the trial judge improperly rejected his evidence, accepted the complainants’ evidence despite inconsistencies, and provided insufficient reasons for the credibility findings.

The court held that while credibility findings normally attract deference, the trial judge’s reasons did not address significant inconsistencies in the evidence and failed to explain the path to conviction.

Applying the functional test for adequacy of reasons from appellate jurisprudence, the court concluded the reasons were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

This constituted an error of law requiring intervention.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The trial judge had excluded Intoxilyzer breath test results on the basis that the police officer allegedly lacked reasonable and probable grounds to make the breath demand under the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court held that proof of reasonable grounds is not a prerequisite to the admissibility of breath test results at common law or under the Criminal Code evidentiary scheme.

Rather, the absence of reasonable grounds may support a Charter challenge and potential exclusion under s. 24(2), but does not automatically render the results inadmissible.

Because the trial judge treated the issue as an automatic bar and failed to conduct the proper Charter analysis, the acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.