Vallery Marilyn Bayly

The accused was convicted at trial of incest and sexual interference against the complainant, his daughter.

The accused appealed on the basis that the trial judge improperly extended or relied upon principles from governing cases regarding the timing of complaint, thereby sidestepping inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, and that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons on how he resolved those inconsistencies.

A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed the further appeal, substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal.

L'appelant a interjeté appel de sa condamnation et de sa peine, alléguant une représentation inefficace de son avocat au procès.

Il a soutenu que son avocat n'avait pas informé la cour de son incapacité à subir son procès, n'avait pas présenté de preuve de son hospitalisation pour démontrer son impossibilité de participer à la fraude, et n'avait pas mené les enquêtes nécessaires pour sa défense.

La Cour d'appel a rejeté ces motifs, estimant que l'affidavit de l'avocat répondait de manière complète et crédible à toutes les allégations de négligence.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of assault with a weapon, breaking and entering, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The Crown argued that the trial judge erred in law by assessing the evidence piecemeal rather than considering it holistically, thereby failing to appreciate how the cumulative evidence built the strength of the Crown's case.

While the appellate court found that the trial judge did commit an error of law in her approach to the evidence, the appeal was dismissed because the victim—a Crown witness who knew the respondent well—testified with certainty that the attacker was not the respondent.

This independent exculpatory evidence raised a reasonable doubt that could not be overcome by the trial judge's error.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code regarding the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 14, 2019.

Although the parties agreed the appeal was moot, there was a dispute regarding the wording of the endorsement.

The court agreed with the appellant's proposed wording and dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that a subsequent Ontario Review Board hearing determined the appellant should be transferred to St. Joseph's Healthcare in Hamilton due to a treatment impasse with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

Appeal from a conviction for sexual assault following a judge-alone trial.

The appellant and complainant were guests at the same hostel and shared a co-ed room.

The complainant alleged the appellant sexually assaulted her; the appellant claimed the sexual contact was consensual.

The trial judge convicted the appellant.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's conduct and reasons for judgment gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and an appearance of unfairness, warranting a new trial.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of human trafficking, procuring a person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, and advertising sexual services for consideration.

The trial judge misdirected the jury on the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing these offences.

Specifically, the trial judge erred by: (1) instructing the jury to read the disjunctive conduct elements conjunctively, requiring proof of near-total control over the complainant's movements; (2) failing to distinguish between "direction" and "influence" as different degrees of coercion; and (3) improperly extending the immunity provision for advertising one's own sexual services to those who assist in such advertising.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible for assault and robbery offences committed in 2013 near Sudbury.

He sought an absolute or conditional discharge, arguing he posed no significant risk of serious harm to the public.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision to be reasonable given concerns about the appellant's drug use triggering psychotic decompensation and his lack of community living experience.

However, the court expressed concern that the appellant's inability to abstain from drug use had become an insurmountable barrier to obtaining privileges and suggested the Board consider crafting a disposition to facilitate community living experience in future reviews.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered on November 22, 2016, and sentence imposed on September 15, 2017, by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's evidentiary findings, no errors of law in her self-instructions, and no palpable and overriding errors in her application of the law to the facts.

The trial judge did not engage in uneven scrutiny of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from the summary conviction appeal judge's dismissal of his appeal from conviction under s. 445(1) of the Criminal Code for wilfully killing a dog.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's finding of mens rea relating to recklessness.

The trial judge had found that the appellant threw the dog six feet onto a pile of debris with protruding nails, knowing that landing there was likely to cause the dog's death.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed as the test for granting leave to appeal had not been met.