Rebecca DeFilippis

The appellant was convicted of child luring under s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code for sending sexually explicit messages and images to a 15-year-old girl who was a friend of his twin daughters.

The trial judge found that the appellant believed the complainant was under 16 years of age.

The appellant appealed on four grounds: (1) the verdict was unreasonable because the trial judge found only that the appellant would have known the complainant's "approximate age" rather than that he subjectively believed she was under 16; (2) the trial judge failed to provide sufficient assistance to the self-represented appellant regarding Charter issues; (3) the trial judge erred in dismissing the s. 8 Charter application; and (4) the sentence was influenced by a mandatory minimum that was subsequently struck down as unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault entered by a trial judge sitting without a jury.

The trial judge found that the complainant, by virtue of her intoxication, lacked the capacity to consent to the sexual activity in issue.

The appellant argued the conviction was unreasonable and based on misapprehensions of evidence.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion that the Crown proved the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the complainant's lack of capacity to consent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence of two years' imprisonment for criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

The appellant had attempted suicide by driving his vehicle into a hydro pole, causing debris to strike and seriously injure a victim.

The sentencing judge imposed the custodial sentence based primarily on denunciation and deterrence, with minimal consideration of the appellant's serious mental health issues and rehabilitation prospects.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in principle by excluding other relevant sentencing principles and failing to give meaningful consideration to the appellant's mental illness, which played a central role in the offence.

The court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to time served plus two years' probation.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault causing bodily harm, kidnapping, and two counts of breach of probation, as well as seeking leave to appeal sentence.

The convictions arose from an incident where the appellant and three others arrived at the complainant's apartment, demanded return of allegedly stolen property, threatened violence, and subsequently assaulted and confined the complainant, causing severe injuries.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and factual findings.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding that although the trial judge did not expressly address the appellant's history of childhood sexual abuse as a mitigating factor, this omission did not affect the fitness of the sentence imposed.