The appellant appealed a summary conviction for assault arising from a domestic altercation.
He argued that the trial judge failed to properly apply the analytical framework in R. v. W.(D.), failed to address key credibility issues, and provided reasons that prevented meaningful appellate review.
The appellate court found that the trial judge’s reasons mischaracterized parts of the evidentiary record and failed to resolve significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, including prior statements and testimony affecting credibility.
Given the central importance of credibility and unresolved live issues, the reasons were insufficient to disclose the basis for the verdict.
The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.
