Ava Armand

The appellant, Nicholas Necan, appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, having previously pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The appeal raised four grounds concerning the trial judge's jury charge: inadequate anti-bias instruction (specifically regarding the appellant's Indigenous identity and the 'firewater myth'), confusing instructions on intoxication, failure to provide an after-the-fact conduct instruction, and failure to provide a propensity reasoning instruction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury charge, while not perfect, adequately equipped the jury to judge the case, and that no reversible errors occurred regarding the challenged instructions.

The appellant, N.C., appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's reasons for rejecting the appellant's credibility were insufficient and conclusory, failing to provide an adequate explanation for perceived inconsistencies in testimony.

Furthermore, the trial judge erred by not explicitly addressing the mens rea requirement of the sexual assault offence, having only found that the actus reus was proven.

The court emphasized the necessity for trial judges to provide comprehensive reasons that allow for proper appellate review of all elements of an offence.

The appellant, Edson Neto, appealed his conviction for sexual assault causing bodily harm.

The trial judge had convicted him based on the complainant's consistent testimony and powerful confirmatory medical evidence, despite concerns about the complainant's reliability on other charges (human trafficking, of which he was acquitted).

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge erred in finding the medical evidence confirmatory of the sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal found no error, concluding that the medical evidence (vaginal bleeding, lacerations, abrasions, swelling) was consistent with a violent sexual assault and inconsistent with the appellant's claim of menstruation, thereby confirming the complainant's account and disposing of the defence's alternative hypothesis.

The appeal was dismissed.