Vallery Marilyn Bayly

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of intimidation by blocking or obstructing a highway under s. 423(1)(g) of the Criminal Code, arising from his leadership role in the 'Freedom Convoy' protests in Ottawa.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent on the basis that the offence required proof of threats or violence and an intent to intimidate individuals when occurring in the context of a political protest.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by reading in elements not found in the text of the provision and by treating the political protest context as a defence to otherwise criminal conduct.

The Court substituted a conviction, finding that the respondent's conduct in blocking highways to compel the government to change its COVID-19 policies satisfied all elements of the offence.

The offenders were found guilty of fraud over $5,000 relating to syndicated mortgage loans for two construction projects, resulting in a loss of over $24.4 million to nearly 800 investors.

The court found the magnitude, complexity, and duration of the fraud to be significant aggravating factors, while the offenders' lack of prior records and community support were mitigating.

Emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation for large-scale commercial fraud, the court sentenced each offender to 5 years in penitentiary, a $12.2 million fine in lieu of forfeiture, and a 10-year prohibition order.

The appellant was acquitted at trial on a charge of transmitting sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating sexual assault or indecent exposure under s. 171.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and substituted a conviction, finding the trial judge erred in law by characterizing the appellant's conduct as merely flirtatious and by conflating the mens rea of the enumerated offence with that of the charged offence.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the conviction, confirming that to establish the inchoate offence under s. 171.1(1)(b), the Crown need only prove the accused transmitted sexually explicit material for the purpose of facilitating a listed offence, not that the accused intended to commit that offence.

The Court affirmed that facilitating includes grooming a child by reducing inhibitions or exploiting immaturity.

The Court added that characterizing an adult's sexualized conduct toward a child as flirtatious is a serious mischaracterization with no place in criminal justice proceedings involving sexual violence against children.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a Belleville police officer charged with assault causing bodily harm arising from an arrest.

The officer and a co-accused were charged following an incident at a fast-food restaurant where they arrested a man for alleged theft of an energy drink.

The trial judge found the co-accused guilty of common assault but acquitted the respondent officer.

The Crown argued the acquittal was incongruous and that the officer should have been found guilty because he shared the co-accused's erroneous belief about reasonable grounds for arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly applied the law and made factual findings that supported the acquittal, particularly that the respondent did not know what was happening inside the restaurant until he saw the struggle through the window.

This decision concerns the conviction of Jawad Rathore and Vince Petrozza for Fraud Over $5,000 under section 380 of the Criminal Code related to syndicated mortgage loans raised through their organization, Fortress.

The Court found that Rathore and Petrozza intentionally misled investors by misrepresenting the value of the security backing the loans, using inflated and misleading appraisals to calculate loan-to-value ratios, thereby deceiving investors about the actual security of their investments.

The Crown's theory of non-disclosure of upfront fees was rejected, as fees were paid by the borrower and not the lenders, and no obligation to disclose them to investors was found.

The Court emphasized the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and relied on documentary evidence to assess credibility and reliability.

The accused were found guilty based on the misrepresentations of value that created a risk of deprivation to investors.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of transmitting sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating an enumerated sexual offence.

The court held that the trial judge misapplied the mens rea requirement by treating proof of identity in the masturbation video as necessary and by treating an intention to 'flirt' as inconsistent with an intention to facilitate sexual offences.

In context, the accepted facts established grooming conduct aimed at reducing the child's inhibitions and making sexual offending easier or more probable.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal was set aside, and a conviction was entered.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for past offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board that ordered his detention at a forensic mental health facility with community privileges, rather than granting his request for a conditional discharge.

The Board denied the conditional discharge due to public safety concerns, emphasizing the need for swift intervention in case of mental state decompensation, despite the appellant's recent stability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court deferred to the Board's expert opinion, supported by the appellant's psychiatrist, that a detention order was necessary to ensure public protection by allowing intervention before the criteria for involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act were met, which conditional discharge mechanisms might not adequately provide.

The appellants were convicted of procuring, receiving a material benefit from sexual services, and advertising sexual services.

At trial, the judge applied section 276 of the Criminal Code to restrict the appellants from cross-examining the complainant about her prior work in the sex trade.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that section 276 does not apply categorically to sexual services and human trafficking offences, and that the trial judge erred in applying it to restrict relevant cross-examination.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso, allowed the appeals in respect of the sexual services offences, and ordered a new trial.

An appeal against a conviction for trafficking MDMA was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the trial judge correctly determined the appellant was reckless or wilfully blind as to consent, precluding the defence of honest but mistaken belief.

The court also dismissed the appeal against sentence, granting leave but finding the sentence was not demonstrably unfit and that the trial judge appropriately considered mitigating factors, imposing a sentence slightly below the typical range for forced penetration.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for various offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his detention at the North Bay Regional Health Centre.

The appeal raised two issues: whether the ORB unreasonably focused on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to the exclusion of trauma and Gladue principles, and whether its decision regarding smoking privileges was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the first ground due to the appellant's concessions on the detention disposition.

Regarding smoking, the court found the ORB's decision reasonable, noting the hospital's smoke-free policy and the appellant's past non-compliance with privileges.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Michael Loiselle, sought leave to appeal his 18-month sentence for four counts of fraud, arguing the sentencing judge erred by misunderstanding the effect of his 436 days of house arrest.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge should have acknowledged the house arrest, this oversight did not impact the sentence, as the imposed term was at the lowest end of the appropriate range.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Waqar Ali, appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault and one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sought leave to appeal his global sentence of 22 months.

The appeal raised issues concerning an alleged s.11(b) Charter delay, the trial judge's decision to grant a similar fact application, the assessment of DNA evidence, and the credibility assessment of the appellant's testimony regarding his vehicle.

On sentence, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding a breach of trust as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding both the conviction and the sentence, finding no errors in principle or demonstrably unfit sentence.

This endorsement addresses the publication of a decision concerning an application under s. 680 of the Criminal Code to set aside a detention order.

Due to a pre-existing non-publication order under s. 517 of the Criminal Code, which applies via s. 28 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the full decision will not be publicly available until the publication ban ceases to be in effect.

Robert Vanier, former CEO of Onco Petroleum Inc., appealed his conviction for publishing a false prospectus under s. 400 of the Criminal Code, for which he received an 8-year sentence.

The false prospectus misrepresented the company's liquid funds.

Vanier, self-represented at trial, raised several grounds of appeal, including trial unfairness (denial of a Rowbotham application, inadequate preparation assistance, language issues, and evidence presentation), errors in jury instructions (distinction between motive and intent, witness credibility), and the admissibility of evidence found on an abandoned hard drive (Charter s. 8).

He also appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge relied on unproven aggravating factors and failed to deduct pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no errors by the trial judge regarding trial fairness, jury instructions, or the s. 8 Charter analysis.

The court also found no error in the sentence, affirming that the trial judge's assessment of aggravating factors was appropriate and that pre-sentence custody deductions were not warranted as Vanier was incarcerated for a separate conviction.

The appellant, convicted of aggravated assault and other offences, appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

The sentencing judge had found him to be a dangerous offender under s. 753(1) of the Criminal Code, concluding he posed a high likelihood of harmful recidivism and that his conduct was intractable, despite his treating psychiatrist's opinion that his illnesses were treatable.

The appellant also argued that inconsistent evidence regarding his Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) status warranted a new assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence, finding no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of intractability based on the appellant's history of non-compliance, lack of insight, and continued assaultive behaviour.

The Court also rejected the argument for a new NCR assessment, clarifying that the psychiatrist's statement was not inconsistent with the prior NCR assessment.

Robert Vanier was convicted of two counts of perjury for making false statements under oath in Personal Information Forms (PIFs) submitted to the TSX and CNQ exchanges.

He appealed, arguing that s. 131 of the Criminal Code did not apply because the statements were not "permitted, authorized, or required by law" to be made under oath, and that he should have been charged under s. 134.

He also claimed a violation of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statements were indeed permitted by law as they stemmed from the Securities Act and the exchanges' regulatory powers, and that there was no unreasonable delay.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility and reliability of two Vetrovec witnesses.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's cautious approach and search for confirmation.

The sentence was also found to be fit with no error in principle.

The conviction appeal and leave to appeal sentence were dismissed.

The appellant, R.F., appealed convictions for two sexual offences involving his niece, while having been acquitted of two other sexual offences involving the same complainant.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's credibility, specifically arguing that the judge erred by not considering all evidence holistically and by applying a lessened standard of scrutiny appropriate for children, despite the complainant being a teenager at the time of testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's approach to credibility or the assessment of the complainant's evidence, particularly regarding the core allegation of the "couch incident" versus peripheral inconsistencies.

The appellant, G.C., appealed convictions for sexual assault and incest against his daughter.

The trial judge found the complainant credible but rejected two specific incidents of abuse as unreliable.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the R. v. W.(D.) analysis by compartmentalizing evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the evidence as a whole, applied the burden of proof, and was entitled to accept some parts of the complainant's testimony while rejecting others, without misapprehending W.(D.) principles.

The appellant was convicted of gross indecency against his sister and appealed the conviction.

The appeal raised five issues, all concerning the trial judge's assessment of credibility and reliability of the appellant and the complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's conclusions.

The court reiterated the high deference owed to trial judges' credibility findings and affirmed that the judge correctly applied principles regarding witness demeanor and the theory of recent fabrication.