Skip to main content

minicounsel

Legal Resources Directory

/7667

/OCA/2006/7667

R. v. F.S., 2006 CanLII 7667 (ON CA)

March 16, 2006|Cited 4x

R. v. F.S., 2006 CanLII 7667 (ON CA)

Case Summary

The appellant appealed a matter to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. A publication ban was ordered prohibiting publication until the end of the trial. No reasons for decision or outcomes are provided in the available text.

DATE: 20060316 DOCKET: C43305

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

ROSENBERG, CRONK and GILLESE JJ.A.

B E T W E E N :

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

Philip Campbell and Michael Dineen for the appellant

and -

F.S. Appellant

Deborah Krick for the respondent

Heard: February 16, 2006

Publication prohibited until the end of trial.

Cited By (4 cases)

OCACourt of AppealOct 2, 2024

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Privacy Appeal allowed

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal for aggravated sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in his mens rea analysis by requiring evidence of the complainant's communication of non-consent, which was irrelevant given that no defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent was raised.

This legal error materially impacted the acquittal.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, entered a conviction for aggravated sexual assault, and remitted the matter for sentencing before a different judge.

R. v. Degale, 2024 ONCA 720

OCJCourt of JusticeNov 30, 2023

Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice

The accused was convicted of voyeurism, extortion, sexual assault, and forcible confinement after the court accepted the complainant's evidence.

The accused was charged with voyeurism, extortion, sexual assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault (choking), and forcible confinement.

The Crown entered an acquittal for uttering threats.

The court assessed the credibility of the complainant and the accused, finding the complainant generally credible and her account supported by physical evidence, while the accused's testimony was unreliable and intentionally dishonest on material issues.

The court found the accused guilty of voyeurism, extortion, sexual assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault (choking), and forcible confinement.

R. v. A.L., 2023 ONCJ 618

SCJSuperior Court of JusticeAug 18, 2022

Superior Court of Justice

Superior Court of Justice

Certiorari granted in part; committal for sexual assault quashed as subsequent robbery did not vitiate consent.

The applicant sought an order of certiorari to quash his committal for trial on charges of aggravated assault and sexual assault.

The charges arose after the applicant engaged in consensual sex with a sex trade worker, then choked her to unconsciousness and robbed her.

The court dismissed the application regarding aggravated assault, finding that choking to unconsciousness provided some evidence of endangering life.

However, the court granted the application to quash the sexual assault committal, ruling that the preliminary inquiry judge committed a jurisdictional error by finding the subsequent robbery vitiated the complainant's consent to the preceding sexual activity.

R. v. Tebbs, 2022 ONSC 4325

OCACourt of AppealDec 1, 2014

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed in part to grant enhanced pre-sentence custody credit.

The appellant appealed his convictions for threatening death, unlawful confinement, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and assault with a weapon, as well as his sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in the jury instructions regarding consent, failed to provide a limiting instruction on bad character evidence, and presented an unbalanced charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no reversible errors in the jury charge and no prejudice from the lack of a limiting instruction.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed in part to grant enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody at a ratio of 1.5:1, varying the sentence accordingly.

R. v. Nelson, 2014 ONCA 853

Showing 4 of 4 citing cases