David Kiesman

The appellant appealed a sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing credibility (W.(D.) test) and rejecting his testimony, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons for credibility findings were sufficient and that the fresh evidence was not diligent or material.

The Crown applied for a review of a Justice of the Peace's decision to release the accused on a recognizance with a surety.

The accused was charged with two break and enters, one involving a severe assault.

The Crown argued the Justice of the Peace erred in law, made an inappropriate decision, and that new evidence justified detention.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding the Justice of the Peace properly considered the tertiary ground, the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, and Gladue principles in crafting a strict release plan with a strong surety.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for assaulting his common-law spouse.

The conviction relied entirely on the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of the appellant and the complainant.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge misapprehended material evidence regarding the parties' intoxication and the physical altercation, and subjected the appellant's evidence to a stricter level of scrutiny than the complainant's.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The accused applied under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to review a detention order made on the secondary ground that his release would pose a substantial likelihood of further offences.

The defence argued there was a material change in circumstances because the proposed surety, the accused’s grandfather, testified at the review hearing although he had not testified at the original bail hearing.

The court found no error in principle in the justice of the peace’s decision and held that the evidence did not establish a material change in circumstances.

Given the accused’s extensive criminal record and repeated breaches of release conditions, the court concluded there remained a substantial likelihood of reoffending if released.

The applicant brought two applications seeking state-funded counsel for his summary conviction appeal for assault and mischief.

The first application under s. 684(1) of the Criminal Code was dismissed because the Superior Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction, as the provision applies only to indictable appeals before the Court of Appeal.

The second application for a Rowbotham order was also dismissed.

Although the applicant was denied Legal Aid and lacked the means to retain counsel, the court found that the appeal was not legally or factually complex and the charges were not sufficiently serious to warrant state-funded counsel.

The applicant was deemed capable of representing himself.