In this criminal appeal, the accused challenged a perjury conviction arising from testimony given at an inquest following a conducted-energy-weapon incident at an airport.
The accused argued unreasonable verdict, misapprehension of evidence, issue estoppel, and abuse of process, including the Crown’s pursuit of an alleged collusion theory.
The Court held that no reviewable factual error or misapprehension was established and upheld the conviction substantially for the provincial appellate reasons.
A dissenting justice would have ordered a new trial on the basis that the collusion finding was unreasonable and tainted other findings.
