Amy Michelle Alyea

The appellant challenged assault convictions on the basis that the verdicts were unreasonable.

The court held that in-court identification evidence from the two victims, standing alone, could not support reasonable convictions.

Although evidence that the attacker was addressed by the first name Perry was capable of providing some confirmation, the Crown led no evidence explaining how the recorded licence plate number led police to the appellant.

The court held it could not fill gaps in the Crown's case and concluded the verdict did not cross the reasonableness threshold.

The Crown appealed a directed verdict acquitting a young offender on a sexual assault charge arising from the same incident as a charge under s. 152 of the Criminal Code.

The appeal court held that s. 150.1(3), which limits prosecution of persons aged twelve or thirteen for offences under s. 151 or s. 152 absent a specified relationship, does not apply to sexual assault under s. 271(1).

The court further held that the evidence of inducing a seven-year-old complainant to perform fellatio constituted evidence of touching and interference with bodily integrity amounting to force for assault purposes, rendering consent irrelevant given the complainant's age.

The acquittal was quashed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant challenged historic convictions for gross indecency, indecent assault, and common assault arising from repeated sexual abuse of his younger sisters over a lengthy period.

The court held the trial judge's characterization of the appellant as violent and vindictive was reasonably grounded in the evidence and was admissible as narrative context explaining delayed disclosure, not as propensity proof.

The court further held that the convictions rested on a proper credibility assessment, including rejection of the fabrication theory, and that improper Crown cross-examination caused only minimal prejudice.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the 44-month concurrent custodial sentence was upheld as fit given the prolonged abuse, force, threats, and enduring harm.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposing a conditional sentence for a serious but isolated incident.

The Court of Appeal held it was open to the trial judge, in the particular circumstances and in light of the complainant's expressed wishes, to emphasize restorative principles.

The decision to impose a conditional sentence was not unreasonable and attracted deference.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant challenged his conviction on evidentiary and credibility-assessment grounds.

The court held that evidence relating to a stolen Nintendo and a note left by the appellant was admissible, provided it was not used as propensity evidence, and found no such misuse on the record.

However, the trial judge's reasons showed a failure to assess whether disbelief of the appellant's testimony nonetheless left the court with a reasonable doubt in a case turning on credibility.

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