Dr. Fernandes

This is an appeal of the dismissal of a medical malpractice claim.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient for appellate review, failing to analyze essential components of the plaintiff's theory of liability and explain his findings on the standard of care.

Additionally, the trial judge erred in his contradictory treatment of a formal admission regarding the abscess location, effectively disregarding it despite having previously denied a motion to withdraw it.

This resulted in an unfair trial for the plaintiff.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second‑degree murder of his common‑law partner following a lengthy trial.

The sentencing issue was the appropriate period of parole ineligibility under s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

The court considered the offender’s character, the nature and circumstances of the offence, the history of domestic violence, concealment of the victim’s body, lack of remorse, and the jury’s recommendations.

While the jury recommended significantly higher periods of ineligibility, the court applied established jurisprudential ranges for domestic second‑degree murder.

The court imposed life imprisonment with 16 years’ parole ineligibility, along with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

In a murder prosecution, the Crown sought a pre-trial ruling admitting evidence that the accused telephoned the deceased’s mother after the body was discovered and asked what the body had been wearing.

The Crown argued the questioning constituted post-offence conduct supporting an inference of consciousness of guilt, particularly in light of expert evidence suggesting the deceased may have been stripped prior to entering the water.

The defence contended the probative value was weak and that the evidence was prejudicial demeanour evidence capable of supporting innocent explanations.

The court held the evidence was relevant circumstantial evidence and its probative value was not outweighed by prejudice.

Any risks associated with competing inferences could be addressed through proper jury instructions.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder for the strangulation of a 54-year-old woman.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying heavily on the testimony of the appellant's girlfriend, who stated he returned home with blood on his clothes and said something terrible had happened to the victim.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence of his girlfriend recanting her trial testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding the recantation was fabricated and the product of collaboration between the appellant and the witness.

The Court also dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdict was reasonable and the trial judge made no reversible errors, and upheld the 13-year period of parole ineligibility.