Gavin MacDonald

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and aggravated assault following an altercation where he slashed the victim with a knife.

He raised four grounds of appeal, including fresh evidence of interpreter deficiencies, misapprehension of evidence, improper admission of bad character evidence, and erroneous inferences of credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding the fresh evidence immaterial, the trial judge's conclusions reasonable, the bad character evidence properly contextualized as part of the defence theory, and the credibility inferences appropriate.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision upholding his conviction.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding the appeal judge misapprehended the appellant's trial evidence by concluding he admitted to an assault.

However, the appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's reasons were sufficient and disclosed no error, including the proper use of the appellant's prior inconsistent statements to police and on a 911 call.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for historical sexual offences against his step-nephew and stepson.

He argued ineffective assistance of counsel, improper use of similar act evidence, and errors in assessing his testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice from trial counsel's conduct and no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as fresh medical evidence did not demonstrate inadequate care in prison.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the conditions imposed were not the least onerous and restrictive and seeking supervised accommodation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly applied the criterion and its decision was not unreasonable given the medical evidence, noting the conditions were less restrictive than the previous disposition.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault against his stepdaughter following a jury trial.

He appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the central issues, the position of the defence, and the evidence of post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge's instructions were inadequate, failed to address the defence's position that the conduct never occurred, and did not properly separate the multiple counts in the indictment.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The trial judge had acquitted the appellant of the most serious offences due to grave doubts about the complainant's credibility, but convicted him of sexual assault based entirely on a statement made to a police officer.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by focusing solely on whether the statement was made, without determining whether it was truthful, especially since the complainant's evidence did not correspond to the act described in the statement.

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