Adam Zegouras

The appellant appealed her conviction for criminal harassment against her former domestic partner.

The trial judge had convicted the self-represented appellant after rejecting her evidence and accepting the complainant's evidence.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge failed to properly apply the third step of the W.(D.) test and provided insufficient reasons regarding the elements of the offence, specifically whether the complainant was repeatedly followed and whether the appellant had the requisite mens rea.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, relied on stereotypical reasoning, and failed to properly apply the W.D. framework.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred by relying on generalized assumptions about human behaviour—specifically regarding how a victim would act out of guilt or whether parties would cry during consensual sexual activity—to assess credibility, rather than grounding his findings in the evidence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Appellant, Graham Blair, appealed his conviction for impaired driving.

The appeal raised five grounds, primarily challenging the trial judge's findings on reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and breath demand, the onus of proof for a Charter s. 9 breach, the consistency of factual findings regarding police officers, and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge correctly applied the legal principles, including the onus on the accused to prove a Charter breach, the objective and subjective test for reasonable and probable grounds, and the standard of "slight impairment" for impaired driving convictions based on the totality of circumstantial evidence.

The applicant brought a certiorari application to quash his committal for trial on charges of an indecent act and sexual assault.

He argued the preliminary inquiry judge lost jurisdiction by failing to recognize an absence of evidence regarding subjective intent for the indecent act, and by improperly relying on a video statement and insufficient identification evidence for the sexual assault.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error.

The court held there was sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could infer intent, and that the preliminary inquiry judge's decision on the adoption of the video statement was an evidentiary ruling not subject to judicial review.