E. A. Cronk J.A.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and breach of probation, arguing the trial judge erred in using certain evidence to confirm the complainant's testimony, allowed improper cross-examination by the Crown, and misapplied the W.(D.) principles.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge misapprehended one entry in a medical report, there was ample other confirmatory evidence.

The Court also held that improper Crown questioning did not taint the trial judge's reasoning and that the W.(D.) principles were correctly applied.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault against his separated wife, which occurred in the lobby of her brother's apartment building.

He argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his self-defence claim, misapplied the W.(D.) test regarding credibility, provided insufficient reasons under Sheppard, and reached an unreasonable verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered and rejected the self-defence claim, appropriately assessed credibility, and provided adequate reasons for the conviction.

The appellant appealed his convictions for historical indecent assault and sexual assault against three sisters, as well as his 18-month custodial sentence.

He argued the verdicts were unreasonable due to an inconsistency with an acquittal on one count, and that the trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence of him exposing himself and masturbating.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdicts were based on a careful assessment of the evidence and the similar fact evidence was properly admitted to rebut the defence's attacks on the complainants' credibility.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the custodial sentence was appropriate given the breach of trust and psychological harm.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possessing ammunition while subject to a prohibition order under s. 100(2) of the Criminal Code.

He argued the original order was invalid because it failed to specify a reasonable period for surrendering ammunition as required by s. 100(13).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that challenging the validity of the original order constituted an impermissible collateral attack.

The court also found the actus reus was proven, as possessing ammunition three years after the order exceeded any reasonable time limit, and dismissed a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The appellant appealed an eleven-month sentence for breaching a non-contact clause in a recognizance of bail on a pending sexual assault charge.

The breach involved an unintentional, two-minute meeting with the victim with no threats or violence.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was outside the appropriate range, granted leave to appeal, and reduced the sentence to four months, with two months' credit for pre-trial custody.

A young person appealed both a finding of guilt for sexual interference and the custodial disposition imposed after a cadet camping trip incident.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by treating an evidentiary burden as having shifted to the accused and by linking the accused's failure to meet that burden to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, contrary to the W.(D.) framework.

The court also accepted that it was an error to permit use of the accused's statement to police without first holding a voir dire on voluntariness.

A new trial was ordered, rendering the disposition appeal moot.

The young person appealed a conviction for dangerous driving and the resulting disposition of 30 days open custody, 18 months probation, and a one-year driving prohibition.

The young person, who was self-represented at trial with assistance from a parent, argued that the representation was inadequate, full answer and defence was prevented, and the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed the overwhelming evidence of dangerous driving, which included evading a police roadblock and running multiple red lights.

The disposition appeal was allowed in part, reducing the community service requirement from 75 to 25 hours due to the practical hardship it caused the young person's family, with the Crown's consent.