Court File and Parties

Court: COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Date: 2024-09-11 Docket: C68653

Before: Hourigan, Huscroft and Coroza JJ.A.

Between: His Majesty the King, Respondent and Jordan De Medeiros, Appellant

Counsel: Jordan De Medeiros, acting in person Matthew Gourlay, appearing as duty counsel Nicholas Hay, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: September 10, 2024

On appeal from: the convictions entered on December 17, 2019 by Justice Jennifer A. Crawford of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant was convicted of arson disregard human life, mischief endangering life, possession of incendiary material and breach of probation.

[2] The appellant makes several submissions orally and in writing. The appellant initially appealed both his conviction and sentence; however, his sentence appeal was abandoned in April 2022. [1] It is not necessary to mention every submission raised by the appellant. Distilled to the essentials, the appellant now advances two grounds of appeal:

(i) The trial judge made legal and factual errors in her analysis; and (ii) A miscarriage of justice occurred because his counsel was ineffective and incompetent.

[3] Turning to the first ground of appeal, in essence, the appellant contests every factual finding made against him. The appellant argues that the trial judge erred in her legal and factual analysis of the specific counts charged, her ruling to admit evidence of the appellant’s animus towards Kyle, her credibility assessment of the Crown witnesses, and her review of the video evidence tendered by the Crown.

[4] Collectively, the appellant’s submissions amount to re-litigating the case in this court. That is not our function. The trial judge did not err in admitting evidence of animus. She also provided comprehensive and detailed reasons for judgment. We see no basis to interfere with her careful findings. This was an overwhelming circumstantial case.

[5] Nor do we accept the appellant’s second argument, as the appellant’s evidence does not meet the threshold for ineffective assistance of counsel.

[6] The appellant makes broad and sweeping claims against his former trial counsel. We see no support for these claims in the fresh evidence material tendered by the appellant.

[7] Furthermore, none of the alleged failures of trial counsel, even if proven, could be construed as incompetent as measured against a standard of reasonableness. We therefore reject the appellant’s ground of appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

[8] For these reasons, the fresh evidence is admitted, but the appeal is dismissed.

"C.W. Hourigan J.A." "Grant Huscroft J.A." "S. Coroza J.A."

Footnote

[1] The appellant’s affidavit dated April 4, 2022 located in the Ineffective Assistance of Counsel record states that he has served his sentence and is appealing only his conviction. Therefore, the sentence appeal is dismissed as moot.