The appellant appealed a conviction for assault and the resulting sentence imposed after a domestic altercation in which the complainant alleged that the appellant choked her during an argument.
The appellant argued the trial judge misapplied the test in R. v. W.(D.), misapprehended inconsistencies in the evidence, improperly rejected the defence of de minimis non curat lex, demonstrated bias during trial, and erred by imposing restitution.
The court held that the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) framework, reasonably assessed credibility, and correctly rejected the de minimis defence given the seriousness of choking during a domestic dispute.
Allegations of judicial bias were rejected as unfounded.
While the custodial sentence and probation were upheld, the stand‑alone restitution order was set aside as unnecessary because restitution had already been imposed as a probation condition.
