The appellant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to commit bodily harm and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault arising from a home invasion.
He argued that the Crown failed to disclose an interview with a witness who would have testified that the appellant was not involved, and that the verdict was unreasonable.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer criteria as it was available at trial and not reasonably capable of belief.
The court also held that the verdict was reasonable, as there was evidence supporting the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant acted as a recruiter and organizer.
