Carol Anne Matthews

The appellant appealed convictions for assault causing bodily harm, kidnapping, and two counts of breach of probation, as well as seeking leave to appeal sentence.

The convictions arose from an incident where the appellant and three others arrived at the complainant's apartment, demanded return of allegedly stolen property, threatened violence, and subsequently assaulted and confined the complainant, causing severe injuries.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and factual findings.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding that although the trial judge did not expressly address the appellant's history of childhood sexual abuse as a mitigating factor, this omission did not affect the fitness of the sentence imposed.

The accused was charged with arson causing damage to property and arson to an inhabited dwelling arising from a fire in a condominium apartment unit.

The Crown’s case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance footage showing the accused entering and leaving the unit minutes before the fire and the absence of any evidence of another person entering the building.

The accused testified that an armed intruder forced him from the apartment before the fire began.

Applying the principles in R v W.(D) and the law governing circumstantial evidence, the court rejected the accused’s testimony as implausible and inconsistent with other evidence.

The court concluded that the only rational inference from the evidence was that the accused intentionally set the fire.