Gregory Hendry

The accused was tried on charges of invitation to sexual touching of a person under 16 and attempt to obtain sexual services of a person under 18 arising from multiple telephone conversations with a 14-year-old complainant.

The defence conceded the actus reus on the recorded calls but argued the conversations were only pretend role-play intended to warn the complainant about chat-line dangers.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible and found the recorded and unrecorded conversations were real, sexually explicit, and intended to encourage sexual activity and paid sexual services.

The Crown proved mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt and convictions were entered on both counts.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for dangerous driving and the resulting suspended sentence.

The conviction arose from a collision between the appellant's taxi cab and a moped, preceded by erratic driving including speeding, tailgating, and unsafe lane changes.

The appeal court found no material misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge, concluding that the appellant's driving constituted a marked departure from the norm.

The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

He argued that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make an approved screening device demand and that the trial judge erred in rejecting his evidence regarding alcohol consumption.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court held that the constellation of factors—including departure from a bar near closing time, admission of recent drinking, and bloodshot eyes—objectively supported reasonable suspicion.

The court also found no reversible error in the trial judge’s credibility findings or rejection of the defence theory that mislabelled beer bottles explained the elevated readings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol, arguing that the trial judge erred in relying on pre‑Charter roadside statements, improperly accepted police testimony about statements not recorded in the officer’s notebook or disclosure, reversed the burden on a Charter application, and wrongly concluded the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make an Intoxilyzer demand.

The court held that roadside statements may be used on a Charter application to assess the reasonableness of the officer’s grounds.

The absence of notebook entries does not automatically render police evidence unreliable and credibility findings are owed deference on appeal.

Considering the circumstances, including the approved screening device result and the officer’s belief about recent consumption, the trial judge’s findings were open on the evidence.

The Crown appealed an acquittal for refusing to provide a breath sample under s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge had concluded the accused lacked a settled intention to refuse because he acted on perceived legal advice and confusion, and also relied on a “last chance request” analysis.

On appeal, the court held that the offence is one of general intent requiring only knowledge or awareness of the refusal, not wilfulness.

The court further found the last‑chance defence inapplicable because the accused made no immediate request to provide a sample and remained adamant in refusing despite repeated explanations.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The accused, charged with aggravated sexual assault for failing to disclose his HIV-positive status to the complainant, brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to introduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity.

The accused sought to cross-examine the complainant on prior inconsistent statements regarding his sexual practices and to introduce evidence of a pattern of risky sexual behaviour to argue the complainant would have consented even if he knew of the accused's HIV status.

The court allowed the cross-examination on the prior inconsistent statements, finding them highly relevant to credibility.

However, the court dismissed the application to introduce evidence of the complainant's pattern of risky sexual behaviour, finding its probative value did not outweigh the prejudicial effect and risk of discriminatory bias.

The accused was charged with theft over $5,000 arising from a series of cheques written to herself from a corporate account while employed as a manager and later shareholder.

The Crown alleged the accused lacked authority and concealed the payments.

The defence maintained the cheques were authorized and properly recorded as shareholder loans in the company’s books.

After applying the W.(D.) credibility framework, the court accepted the accused’s evidence, supported by a forensic accounting report showing the payments were transparently recorded and not concealed.

The court held the dispute was essentially civil in nature between shareholders and that the Crown failed to prove theft beyond a reasonable doubt.