John Thomas Heintzelman is not going to get a chance to try to overturn two serious criminal convictions.

In a ruling posted today on the B.C. Court of Appeal website, Justice Gail Dickson dismissed the unlicensed Victoria masseur's application for leave to appeal a ruling last year that overturned earlier acquittals.

Heintzelman was initially found not guilty in 2018 of sexually assaulting two clients at his home-based business, which offered Swedish massage, hot-stone massage, and Bowen therapy.

After police received one complaint in 2017, they posted a notice on Facebook and Twitter seeking additional victims.

A second complainant came forward. She acknowledged having mental health issues and taking medication.

https://twitter.com/vicpdcanada/status/921517873142665218?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E921517873142665218&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vicnews.com%2Fnews%2Fnew-trial-for-james-bay-masseur-acquitted-of-sexual-assault%2F

At trial, the judge ruled there was no basis upon which to assess the impact of the second complainant's condition or medication on the reliability of her evidence.

After the acquittals, the Crown appealed.

The summary appeal judge concluded that the trial judge erred by reducing the weight of similar-fact evidence due to the second complainant's mental condition and the Facebook notice.

So Heintzelman was then convicted on two counts of sexual assault.

Dickson noted in her recent ruling that Heintzelman needed to show that there were exceptional circumstances in his case that would warrant a further appeal.

"In support of his submission, Mr. Heintzelman emphasizes that the alleged error regarding the [Facebook] Notice was unconnected to any submission he made at trial," Dickson said, according to the transcript. "Rather, the trial judge raised the issue of his own initiative without providing counsel with an opportunity to address it prior to delivering his reasons. Taking into account this factor and all the other circumstances of the case, he submits it is not fair or in the interests of justice to require him to face a new trial.

"I cannot agree with these submissions," she continued. "I see no error in the summary appeal judge’s analysis. It follows that the proposed appeal does not have a reasonable prospect of success."