Candice McFadden appealed her conviction for assaulting her common law spouse with a weapon.
The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the appellant's account of the incident, failed to conduct a full R. v. W.(D.) analysis by focusing too narrowly on the final moments of the confrontation, and applied a different standard of review to the evidence of the victim and the accused.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.
