A. Austin

The appellant was convicted of one count of trafficking in a narcotic, based entirely on the evidence of a single witness.

The trial judge had acquitted the appellant on three charges of sexual assault and another trafficking charge, finding that the same witness had deliberately fabricated those allegations to avoid paying a debt.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the conviction was unreasonable, as there was no clear or logical basis for the trial judge to accept the witness's evidence on the one charge after rejecting the rest of her testimony as fabricated.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The appellant, a senior airport customs inspector, was convicted of importing cannabis and breach of trust after escorting two individuals carrying drugs through customs.

She appealed her convictions, arguing that the trial judge's jury instructions on the meaning of reasonable doubt were defective in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in R. v. Lifchus and R. v. Starr.

The Court of Appeal held that the jury charge, considered as a whole, did not give rise to a reasonable likelihood that the jury misapprehended the standard of proof.

The appeal was dismissed.