Catherine Weiler

The appellant was convicted of historical sexual offences against two sisters.

He appealed the convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting cross-count similar fact evidence and prior consistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably concluded the similar fact evidence had significant probative value that outweighed its prejudicial effect, and properly admitted the prior consistent statements under the narrative exception to explain the delay in reporting.

The applicant was convicted of multiple sexual offences against his daughter and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.

He applied for bail pending his conviction appeal, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting prior consistent statements and in her treatment of a Browne v. Dunn issue, and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding that while the grounds of appeal were not frivolous, they were weak and did not clearly surpass the minimal standard required to outweigh the strong public interest in enforcing the sentence for serious sexual offences against a child.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from his sentence for various firearms and drug trafficking offences.

The applicant had absconded prior to sentencing and was sentenced in absentia to 5 years and 2 months imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a timely intention to appeal, did not adequately explain the delay, and failed to show that the proposed appeal had merit.

The accused, a former police officer, was charged with sexual assault against a complainant he met while investigating a domestic violence incident involving her.

The Crown alleged the accused pushed the complainant onto her bed and rubbed against her without consent, or alternatively, that any consent was vitiated by his abuse of authority.

The accused testified that the touching was consensual and occurred on a couch.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and found the accused's evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.

However, due to inconsistencies and frailties in the complainant's evidence, the court was left with a reasonable doubt as to whether she subjectively did not consent.

The court also found no convincing evidence that consent was vitiated by an abuse of trust or authority.

The accused was acquitted.