Publication Ban Warning

WARNING The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file:

An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1), (2), (2.1), (2.2), (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide:

486.4(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of (a) any of the following offences; (i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or (ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or (b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall (a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

(2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

(2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall (a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order.

(3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

(4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community.

486.6(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2023-07-20 Docket: C70073

Before: Fairburn A.C.J.O., Simmons and Trotter JJ.A.

Between:

His Majesty the King Respondent

and

Alex Joshua Lagasse Appellant

Counsel:

Alex Joshua Lagasse, acting in person Erica Whitford, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: July 6, 2023

On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice Mitch Hoffman of the Ontario Court of Justice on April 30, 2020.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant raises numerous grounds of appeal against his convictions for sexual assault, uttering threats, and failing to comply with probation.

[2] This was a stranger attack where the complainant was pulled from the street into a dark, grassy area late at night. Hearing a cry for help, two men interrupted the attack, but not before the victim scratched the assailant. DNA was located under her fingernails, revealing a profile that was, for all intents and purposes, that of the appellant. The DNA evidence, combined with other circumstantial evidence, made for a formidable Crown case.

[3] The appellant raises numerous issues on the conviction appeal, such as: ineffective assistance of counsel; judicial bias; misapprehension of the law; failures to properly assess credibility; failures to disclose important evidence; inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses; inappropriately limiting the role of amicus curiae; prejudicial media coverage; and insufficient evidence to warrant the conviction. He also raises concerns regarding the s. 11(b) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ruling, including and specifically in relation to a waiver that is said to have been inappropriately extracted for the appointment of amicus curiae.

[4] Having reviewed the entire record, including the trial process, the rulings, and the trial judge’s reasons, we see no error.

[5] Although we see no properly constituted sentence appeal that is before this court, the appellant also submits that his probation order should be shortened. We see no basis to shorten the length of that order.

[6] The appeal is dismissed.

“Fairburn A.C.J.O.”

“Janet Simmons J.A.”

“G.T. Trotter J.A.”