Rebecca De Filippis

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.