Two Ontario convictions have been overturned after reviewing courts found trial judges Sandra Caponecchia and Feroza Bhabha abandoned their neutral roles and effectively joined prosecutors in cross-examining the accused.

As first reported by the Toronto Star, both cases resulted in new trials because the judges’ questioning created an appearance of unfairness.

In the first case, Caponecchia questioned a man accused of sexually assaulting a woman he met through Tinder after the Crown had completed its cross-examination.

Her questioning filled seven pages of transcript, nearly one-quarter the length of the Crown’s cross-examination. Caponecchia challenged the accused over his ability to remember “all the intricate details” of the sexual encounter.

She later convicted him and imposed a four-year prison sentence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned that conviction last month, ruling that Caponecchia’s “prolonged, sometimes confrontational” questioning amounted to cross-examination.

Go Ad Free

“Doing so usurps counsel’s role and gives a reasonable person the impression that the judge is not neutral,” the three-judge panel concluded.

The appearance of unfairness was compounded because Caponecchia relied on testimony she had elicited herself when rejecting the accused’s evidence.

In a separate Toronto case, Bhabha extensively questioned a self-represented man charged with dangerous and impaired driving following a single-vehicle crash on the Don Valley Parkway.

The accused claimed a friend had been driving and attributed the smell of alcohol to an attempt to remove ticks from his ears by pouring alcohol into them.

After the Crown finished its cross-examination, Bhabha questioned him for another six pages of transcript. The Crown then relied on some of his answers in its closing submissions, and Bhabha cited them when convicting him.

She imposed a $3,000 fine and a 15-month driving prohibition.

Superior Court Justice Michael Dineen acknowledged that much of the man’s evidence appeared “preposterous,” but still overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Dineen found Bhabha appeared to be “probing for holes in his story,” while her skeptical tone and persistent questioning created the appearance that she was continuing the Crown’s cross-examination.