Ariel Herscovitch

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was aware of the complainant's shortcomings as a witness but reasonably accepted the fundamental point of her evidence that the appellant punched her in the head.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for robbery.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on similar fact evidence from two other convenience store robberies.

He also argued the trial judge erred in sentencing by failing to enhance pre-sentence credit for lack of earned remission, using probation breaches to infer resistance to rehabilitation, and imposing a consecutive sentence for breach of probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's analysis of the signature features of the robberies or in the exercise of his sentencing discretion.

The accused was sentenced following convictions for multiple firearms offences arising from possession of a loaded prohibited semi‑automatic handgun and obstruction of justice.

The court considered the appropriate sentencing range in light of mandatory minimum penalties for prohibited firearm possession and the heightened danger posed by carrying a loaded firearm in a public place.

Although the accused was a young first‑time offender with strong rehabilitative prospects and significant community support, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence due to the serious public safety risk.

The court also considered credit for pre‑trial custody and partial credit for strict house arrest bail conditions as mitigating factors.

A global custodial sentence of four years was imposed with credit for pre‑trial custody and limited credit for bail conditions.

The appellant was charged with various offences arising from three alleged incidents involving his ex-spouse.

He was acquitted on counts relating to the first and third dates and convicted on two counts relating to the second date.

On appeal, he argued the convictions were inconsistent with the acquittals because the central issue was the complainant's credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence and acts alleged were different for each date, and the jury was entitled to convict on some counts while acquitting on others.