Gloria J. Epstein

The appellant was convicted of assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and forcible confinement in a domestic setting.

The complainant, his fiancée, deliberately failed to attend court for the trial.

The trial judge admitted her videotaped K.G.B. statement as the main evidence against the appellant.

On appeal, the appellant argued he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine her.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the statement met the necessity and reliability requirements for admitting hearsay evidence.

The Crown appealed the dismissal of its application for certiorari and mandamus after a preliminary inquiry judge discharged the respondents on first degree murder and committed them for second degree murder.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that there was no evidence of planning and deliberation.

However, the Court found the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded his jurisdiction by determining whether the victim was unlawfully confined to the degree required for constructive first degree murder under s. 231(5)(e), rather than leaving that question to the jury.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the preliminary inquiry judge.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and uttering a threat, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence, reached an unreasonable verdict, and failed to properly scrutinize the frailties of the sole eyewitness's identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge's misapprehension of evidence did not cause a miscarriage of justice and the verdict was not unreasonable, the trial judge erred by failing to adequately analyze the specific frailties of the eyewitness identification, particularly given the lack of corroborating evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his summary conviction appeal.

He had been convicted of attempting to obtain income tax refunds and sentenced to two years less a day.

His conviction appeal was dismissed by the summary conviction appeal judge due to an unexcused delay in perfecting the appeal.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the appeal did not raise a question of law alone, but rather involved the discretionary application of procedural rules.

Furthermore, the court found the underlying claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to be without merit.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, uttering a death threat, and breaking and entering, which arose from a domestic dispute with his former spouse.

He argued the trial judge erred by excluding evidence of a telephone conversation under section 11 of the Canada Evidence Act and by improperly assessing the complainant's credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's discretionary exclusion of the evidence due to lack of compliance with section 11, nor any error in the credibility assessment that would render the verdict unreasonable.

The appellants, custom kitchen distributors, sued the respondent manufacturer for breach of contract after the respondent closed its business in 2008.

The respondent successfully moved to dismiss the action under Rule 21.01(1)(a) on the basis that the two-year limitation period had expired before the claim was issued in July 2011.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the pleadings and particulars established the cause of action arose no later than the end of 2008 and discoverability was not an issue.