Rebecca Anne De Filippis

Appeal from a conviction entered by the Superior Court of Justice on April 21, 2017 for historical sexual assault offences.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's evidence, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by failing to consider whether the complainant's testimony was the product of life experiences and an after-the-fact reconciliation of dreams with actual events, and by improperly considering rumours evidence.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding that the trial judge carefully considered and properly rejected the appellant's submissions.

The court determined that the appellant's arguments constituted a challenge to the reasonableness of the verdicts, which were not unreasonable given the trial judge's assessment of credibility and the application of the burden of proof.

The Crown applied for a search warrant under s. 487 of the Criminal Code to search the accused's password-protected smartphone, along with an assistance order under s. 487.02 to compel the accused to unlock the device.

The court granted the search warrant but dismissed the application for the assistance order.

The court held that compelling the accused to reveal his password or unlock the phone would violate his right to pre-trial silence and protection against self-incrimination under s. 7 of the Charter, and that the use immunity proposed by the Crown was insufficient to cure the breach.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault following a trial where the sole issue was whether the complainant had the capacity to consent and whether she in fact consented to sexual intercourse.

The complainant was a self-described alcoholic who had consumed significant alcohol in the 48 hours preceding the incident.

The appellant did not testify at trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant was denied effective representation by trial counsel, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The court determined that trial counsel prevented the appellant from testifying or making his own decision about whether to testify, failed to conduct an effective cross-examination of the complainant, and failed to introduce an expert toxicologist's report that was part of Crown disclosure.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault entered by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appellant had bitten off the complainant's ear during an altercation at the complainant's residence.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the trial judge failed to resolve material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence regarding the description of the attack and his drinking habits; and second, that the trial judge impermissibly speculated about the cause of the injury without expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the complainant's credibility, that any inconsistencies were minor and did not undermine the core allegations, and that the trial judge did not speculate but rather accepted the complainant's uncontradicted testimony.

Crown appeal from a successful defence summary conviction appeal.

The respondent was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge convicted the respondent based on circumstantial evidence including observations of impairment, prescription pill bottles found in the vehicle, and the effects of the drugs matching the respondent's behaviour.

The summary conviction appeal court set aside the conviction and entered an acquittal, finding insufficient evidence that the pill bottles contained the drugs on their labels or that those drugs were in the respondent's system.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding the summary conviction appeal court erred in applying an incorrect standard of review and substituting its opinion for that of the trial judge.

The conviction was restored.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for criminal harassment.

The appellant abandoned his conviction appeal but sought leave to introduce fresh evidence and to appeal his sentence on the grounds that it was imposed without consideration of collateral immigration consequences that arose from amendments to federal immigration legislation introduced after sentencing.

The Crown conceded that had these consequences been known at sentencing, they would have affected the result.

The court granted the fresh evidence application, granted leave to appeal sentence, and allowed the appeal, imposing a suspended sentence with credit for six months less one day of pre-sentence custody and two years' probation.

The appellant was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault, assault, and break and enter to commit an indictable offence against two former domestic partners.

The trial judge found both complainants credible and reliable, concluding that neither consented to certain sexual acts including penetration with the appellant's fist.

The appellant did not testify but argued the complainants had unconsciously convinced themselves of non-consent.

The trial judge imposed a global sentence of nine years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the convictions based on material inconsistencies in one complainant's evidence and the admissibility of cross-count similar fact evidence, and challenged the sentence on totality grounds.

The appellant, an NCR accused with schizoaffective disorder and polysubstance use disorder in remission, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to order a conditional discharge rather than an absolute discharge.

The Board had imposed a requirement that the appellant demonstrate a 12-month drug-free period before obtaining absolute discharge, citing substance abuse as the critical risk factor.

The Court of Appeal found the Board had misdirected itself by shifting the burden of proof to the appellant and by relying on speculative evidence of risk rather than evidence demonstrating a significant threat to public safety.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered an absolute discharge.

The appellant appealed his convictions for six counts of sexual assault and two counts of assault of a minor victim, as well as his six-year sentence.

The victim alleged that the appellant sexually and physically assaulted her over a two-year period when she was 14-15 years old and he was 44.

The trial judge convicted the appellant on six counts of sexual assault and two counts of assault after finding the victim's evidence credible and rejecting the appellant's denials.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal on conviction: misapplication of the burden of proof, misapprehension of the significance of the victim's diary, and erroneous assessment of the victim's testimony according to standards applicable to young persons.

On sentencing, the appellant argued the trial judge relied on inadmissible evidence and failed to apply the principle of parity.

The appellate court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals.

The appellant sought to withdraw guilty pleas to fail to remain causing death and fail to remain causing bodily harm under the Criminal Code, claiming he misunderstood the charges and believed he was pleading to Highway Traffic Act offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to meet the onus of demonstrating that his plea was not informed.

All objective evidence from plea negotiations, the plea inquiry, the plea itself, and sentencing hearing established that the charges were Criminal Code offences.

The appellant was convicted of assault following a trial before a judge sitting without a jury on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference.

The conduct involved the appellant entering a washroom stall where a three-year-old stranger was standing with his clothing down and pulling the child's sleepers up, making contact with the child's buttocks.

The appellant appealed on the grounds that the trial judge erred in failing to apply an objective test regarding whether the conduct was within the class of ordinarily acceptable conduct in daily life, and in failing to apply the criminal standard to these issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory definition of assault in section 265(1)(a) of the Criminal Code is exhaustive and does not require proof of socially unacceptable conduct beyond intentional and non-consensual touching.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a summary conviction appeal decision dismissing his conviction.

The Court of Appeal considered whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 839(1) of the Criminal Code, which permits appeals only where a question of law alone is raised and leave is granted.

The court applied the restrictive test established in R. v. R.(R.), finding that the proposed question of law lacked significance to the administration of justice beyond the specific case and that no clear error was apparent.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for assault, argued that he had reached a treatment impasse at Waypoint and sought an independent assessment and transfer to a less secure facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence did not substantiate the existence of a treatment impasse and that the Board's decision to maintain detention at Waypoint was well-supported by evidence regarding the appellant's risk to public safety, including his history of water intoxication, threats to staff, and previous elopement from other facilities.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

He appealed the sentence, seeking a reduction to six months less a day because he was unaware of the significant immigration consequences at the time of his plea and sentencing.

The Crown consented to the reduction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the requested reduction modest and the proposed sentence fit.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him to Waypoint, arguing it was not the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence supported the Board's disposition as Waypoint would be better able to transition the appellant out of seclusion and provide necessary structure.