Deanna Irene Bronowicki

The appellant appealed his two summary convictions for assault against his former intimate partner.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and erred in law by finding the complainant's credibility was 'reinforced' by her failure to embellish her testimony.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the misapprehension of evidence ground but agreed the trial judge engaged in fallacious reasoning regarding credibility.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso, finding the error was not minor and the convictions were not inevitable given that credibility was the central issue.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for dangerous driving.

The trial judge had found that the appellant's vehicle was the same one observed speeding on Highway 8 and that he drove dangerously in the Goderich Courthouse Square.

On appeal, the court found that the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider other reasonable possibilities regarding the circumstantial identification of the vehicle on Highway 8.

Furthermore, the trial judge made an impermissible inference that the appellant had tailored his evidence to the Crown's case, which fatally flawed the credibility assessment.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

Donald Earhart, convicted of first-degree murder, applied under s. 745.61 of the Criminal Code for a reduction in his parole ineligibility period.

The court conducted a judicial screening to determine if there was a "reasonable prospect" that a jury would unanimously reduce the period, considering factors such as his character, conduct in prison, the nature of the offence, victim impact statements, and his Indigenous background (Gladue factors).

The court found that the applicant had established a reasonable prospect, particularly given his Indigenous status, mental health conditions, and extended periods in segregation.

The application was granted, and a jury will be empanelled.