3 total
Summary conviction appeal dismissed but sentence reduced to 18 months due to failure to apply restraint.
The appellant appealed his summary conviction and sentence for assault causing bodily harm.
At trial, the judge rejected his claim of self-defence, finding his testimony fabricated and contradicted by his own recorded statements.
On appeal, the court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge did not improperly use the rejected evidence as a makeweight for the Crown.
However, the sentence appeal was allowed because the trial judge failed to apply the principle of restraint for a first-time offender.
Considering fresh evidence, the court reduced the sentence from two years less a day to 18 months' incarceration.
The court dismissed a criminal harassment charge arising from a post-separation dispute over motor vehicles and social media posts.
The defendant, Shakara Walker, faced charges of publishing a defamatory libel and criminal harassment following a contentious separation and dispute over shared property with the complainant.
The Crown stayed the defamatory libel charge.
The court dismissed the criminal harassment charge, finding that while the defendant's social media posts and actions were immature and petty, they did not meet the legal threshold for criminal harassment, nor did they cause the complainant to reasonably fear for his physical or psychological safety.
The court convicted the accused of assault and other charges after identifying him from surveillance video using his exposed facial tattoo.
The defendant, George Andrews, was charged with five counts, including assault with a weapon (motor vehicle), dangerous operation of a conveyance, mischief over $5,000, and two counts of failing to comply with a release order.
The Crown sought to prove identity through a Nikolovski application, relying on surveillance video and the defendant's tattoos.
The defence argued against compelling the defendant to expose tattoos for identification, citing R. v. Zhou.
The court ruled that it was entitled to observe the defendant's already exposed facial tattoo for identification purposes, distinguishing the case from situations requiring disrobing.
The judge found the facial tattoo matched the video evidence and concluded that the defendant was the culprit, also finding intent for the assault.
The defendant was found guilty on all five charges.
