R. v. Katalayi-Kassende
The Crown conceded that the SOIRA order was improperly made and the appellant abandoned all other grounds of appeal; therefore the only relief granted was removal of the improperly made SOIRA order while other statutory publication restrictions remain in force.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2019 ONCA 137
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Ken Michel Katalayi-Kassende
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 28 February 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed only to the extent of removing the SOIRA order; all other grounds of appeal abandoned.
- Legal Topics
- SOIRA Order, Publication Ban, Appeal, Conviction, Sentence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Ken Michel Katalayi-Kassende
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the SOIRA order was properly made
- 2 Whether any other grounds of appeal should succeed given appellant's abandonment
Ratio Decidendi
The Crown conceded that the SOIRA order was improperly made and the appellant abandoned all other grounds of appeal; therefore the only relief granted was removal of the improperly made SOIRA order while other statutory publication restrictions remain in force.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed only to the extent of removing the SOIRA order; all other grounds of appeal abandoned.
Orders
- SOIRA order removed
- All other grounds of appeal are abandoned by the appellant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Katalayi-Kassende Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2019-02-28 Neutral citation 2019 ONCA 137 Docket numbers C60653 Judges MacPherson, James C.; Sharpe, Robert J.; Tulloch, Michael H. Subject Criminal Decision Content WARNING The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file: An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1), (2), (2.1), (2.2), (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide: 486.4(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of (a) any of the following offences; (i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or (ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant’s sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or (iii) REPEALED: S.C. 2014, c. 25, s. 22(2), effective December 6, 2014 (Act, s. 49). (b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a). (2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall (a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order. (2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. (2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall (a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order. (3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. (4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. 2005, c. 32, s. 15; 2005, c. 43, s. 8(3)(b); 2010, c. 3, s. 5; 2012, c. 1, s. 29; 2014, c. 25, ss. 22,48; 2015, c. 13, s. 18.. 486.6(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order. 2005, c. 32, s. 15. COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Katalayi-Kassende, 2019 ONCA 137 DATE: 20190221 DOCKET: C60653 MacPherson, Sharpe and Tulloch JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Ken Michel Katalayi-Kassende Appellant Ian R. Smith, duty counsel Jessica Smith Joy, for the respondent Heard: February 13, 2019 On appeal from the conviction entered on June 10, 2015 and the sentence imposed on June 10, 2015 by Justice L.D. Ratushny of the Superior Court of Justice. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The Crown concedes that the SOIRA order was improperly made. The appellant abandons his appeal on all other grounds. The appeal is allowed, but only to the extent of removing the SOIRA order.