Stephanie A. Lewis

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed N.S.'s appeal from convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to consider his mixed out-of-court statements and erred in finding that Crown witnesses corroborated each other.

The Court found no reversible error, holding that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and did not misuse the concept of corroboration.

The decision clarifies the use of mixed out-of-court statements and the proper approach to corroborative evidence in sexual offence trials.

The appellant was charged with several human trafficking and sexual services counts and with one count of assault and one count of assault causing bodily harm.

He was convicted on the two assault counts but acquitted of the remaining charges.

He appealed his convictions and his total sentence of 14.5 months.

He argued the trial judge improperly siloed credibility findings, having acquitted him of the related charges, and provided insufficient reasons.

He also appealed the imposition of consecutive sentences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge was entitled to accept some of the complainant's evidence while rejecting other parts, particularly given corroborating photographic and video evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge reasonably found the assaults were separate incidents and the total sentence was proportionate.

The appellant, D.S., appealed his conviction for sexual assault and his sentence of two years less a day.

The conviction appeal challenged the trial judge's admission of evidence regarding a prior incident of unwanted sexual contact with the complainant, which occurred when the appellant was a youth.

The appellant argued this evidence was highly prejudicial and had low probative value, and that the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) principles should have factored into its admissibility.

The sentence appeal argued for a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect for the prior incident evidence, noting its relevance to the appellant's state of mind regarding consent.

The court also found that YCJA principles did not impede the admissibility of such evidence in this context.

The sentence was upheld as proportionate, despite mitigating factors, due to significant aggravating features.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual exploitation.

The trial judge had convicted the appellant on a global count of sexual exploitation but acquitted on two specific counts of sexual exploitation and sexual assault.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in relying on the Crown's case to reject his evidence without sufficient reasoned basis and failed to resolve material inconsistencies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were considered and reasoned, adequately addressing credibility and reliability, and that alleged inconsistencies were either not material or properly resolved.

Gurdev Singh Multani appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his conditional discharge after he was found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder (NCRMD) for uttering threats.

He sought an absolute discharge and also filed motions to dismiss the original offence and claim damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the argument regarding the justification of conditions was raised too late, as the appellant had previously agreed to the terms if a significant threat was found.

The court also dismissed the motions, stating it lacked jurisdiction to reverse the NCRMD finding on an appeal from an ORB disposition.

The appellant, Orville Kebokee, appealed his conviction for sexual interference under s. 151 of the Criminal Code.

He argued that the trial judge erred in credibility assessment by accepting the complainant's evidence and rejecting his, and by impermissibly discounting issues based on the complainant's age.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's credibility analysis and affirming the deference owed to such findings.

The court rejected the argument that the trial judge's consideration of the complainant's age diluted the standard of proof.

The appellant pleaded guilty to sexual assault and distributing intimate images, receiving a 12-month consecutive sentence.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred by not imposing a conditional sentence and by misapplying sentencing principles, including the consideration of public safety, drug addiction, and restraint.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentencing judge's emphasis on denunciation and general deterrence, and finding no error in principle or demonstrably unfit sentence.

The court reiterated the high deference owed to sentencing decisions.

The appellant, A.I.B., appealed his conviction for assault and sexual assault, and the dismissal of his application to re-open the trial.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's application of the R. v. W.(D.) credibility analysis and the refusal to re-open the trial based on new legal developments and alleged inconsistencies in the victim impact statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's W.(D.) analysis or the application of the Palmer test for re-opening the trial.

The appellant, Andrew Campbell, appealed his convictions for kidnapping, pointing a firearm, and assault causing bodily harm, and his sentence.

The conviction appeal grounds included the trial judge's failure to recharge the jury on the reasonable doubt standard (R. v. W.(D.)) and failure to charge on the racial and cultural context of post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the jury charge or the decision not to recharge.

The sentence appeal challenged the calculation of credit for restrictive bail conditions (Downes credit).

The Court found no error in principle or calculation regarding the Downes credit and dismissed the sentence appeal.

The appellants, convicted of first-degree murder and attempted murder, appealed their convictions and sentences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals for first-degree murder convictions, ordering a new trial due to the trial judge's error in restricting routes to liability and failing to leave included offenses (second-degree murder and manslaughter) to the jury.

The court found that the murder and attempted murder charges were not inextricably linked.

The appeals on the attempted murder convictions were dismissed, and leave to appeal the life sentences for attempted murder was granted but the appeals were dismissed, finding no error in principle in the sentencing.

The appellant, Nathaniel Tulloch, appealed a sentence imposed after pleading guilty to robbery with an imitation firearm, robbery, and use of an imitation firearm.

The sentencing judge had accepted a joint submission for a global custodial term, but all parties inadvertently overlooked section 85(4) of the Criminal Code, which mandates that the sentence for the imitation firearm offence be served consecutively.

The sentencing judge acknowledged the error but was functus officio.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, supported by the Crown, and varied the sentence to ensure the section 85(2)(a) offence was served consecutively, while adjusting the other counts to maintain the originally intended global sentence.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR), appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, a high-secure facility.

The Board had recommended a transfer to a high-security facility in Quebec but rejected the appellant's request for an interim transfer to a medium-security facility in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's history of elopement, violent behaviour, and refusal of medication, which posed a significant threat to public safety.

The court upheld the Board's acceptance of the psychiatrist's opinion that the appellant was not suitable for a medium-security transfer at that time, emphasizing public safety as the paramount consideration.

The appellant appealed his conviction on four counts of sexual assault of a complainant with an intellectual disability, and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's evidence, including alleged inconsistencies, potential tainting by leading questions, and findings supported by inferences.

The court found no error in the trial judge's approach to credibility, emphasizing the deference owed to the trial judge's observations of the vulnerable witness.

The court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdict reasonable, and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal sentence as moot, as the sentence had been served.

The appellant appealed his 21-month custodial sentence for aggravated assault, arguing the sentencing judge erred in applying the parity principle by imposing a sentence almost double that of his co-accused, who pleaded guilty and had a criminal record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The court affirmed that the sentencing judge properly considered the parity principle and other factors like denunciation and deterrence, noting that the co-accused's guilty plea was a mitigating factor not available to the appellant, justifying the disparity.

This decision addresses two applications before the Ontario Court of Appeal: the Crown's application to revoke the appellant J.R.'s bail pending appeal due to a breach of conditions, and J.R.'s new application for release on bail pending appeal.

J.R. conceded the breach but argued for a new release order based on extenuating circumstances (illness of himself and his fiancée).

The court revoked the original bail order as required by the Criminal Code but granted J.R. a new bail order with stricter terms (weekly reporting and a personal pledge), finding that his detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The court also ruled that in these exceptional circumstances, J.R. was not required to be taken into custody before being released on the new bail.

The appellant, Sakia Mojadiddi, appealed her sentence for fraud over $5,000, specifically challenging the amount of the fine in lieu of forfeiture.

She argued the trial judge failed to account for payments made to victims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, affirming that the purpose of a fine in lieu of forfeiture is to deprive the offender of proceeds of crime, not restitutionary, and therefore payments made by co-accused or from commingled victim funds do not reduce the fine amount.

The appellant appealed a 15-year prohibition order imposed under s. 161(1)(d) of the Criminal Code, following convictions for possessing, accessing, and making available child pornography.

The appellant argued the order was too long, beyond statutory provisions, too onerous, and insufficiently tailored.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge's discretion, finding no error in principle or unreasonableness in the 15-year duration or the general conditions.

The court accepted two minor concessions from the Crown regarding specific conditions: a clarification on reporting IP addresses and a two-year maximum duration for inspection and monitoring requirements.

The appeal was largely dismissed, with the original order replaced by a new one incorporating these minor changes.

The applicant, Andrew Campbell, sought bail pending appeal after being convicted of kidnapping, pointing a firearm, and assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that his detention was necessary in the public interest.

The court assessed the public safety, reviewability, and enforceability interests.

While the applicant's amended release plan addressed public safety concerns, the court found that the enforceability interest significantly outweighed the reviewability interest, as the grounds of appeal did not "clearly surpass" the minimal "not frivolous" standard, and the offences were very serious.

The applicant's delay in bringing the application and unwillingness to commit to a prompt appeal perfection date also weighed against release.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.