Ian W. Bulmer

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for aggravated assault.

The trial judge had determined that a 42-month sentence was appropriate but credited the respondent with 18 months for pre-sentence custody, reducing the sentence to under two years and imposing a conditional sentence.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's subsequent decision in R. v. Fice, the Court of Appeal held that pre-sentence custody cannot be used to reduce a penitentiary sentence to make a conditional sentence available.

The appeal was allowed, and the conditional sentence was varied to a custodial sentence of nine months, accounting for time served.

The appellant appealed his fraud conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's evidence, misapprehended evidence regarding representations made to induce a loan, and misapprehended evidence concerning repayment of other loans.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was entitled to consider the absence of contradicting evidence, accurately recalled the evidence of misrepresentation, and that any misapprehension regarding other loans would not have affected the verdict.

An application to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on charges of dangerous driving and impaired ability causing bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly directed himself on the elements of dangerous driving and considered the totality of the evidence.

The Court also held that the trial judge applied the correct legal test for impaired ability causing bodily harm, recognizing that even slight impairment of ability is sufficient to make out the offence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault against two brothers.

The complainants had delayed reporting the incidents to the police and one had previously denied the abuse before a Church Court.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's charge to the jury unsatisfactory because it failed to adequately warn the jury about credibility issues, material inconsistencies, and potential collusion.

Furthermore, the trial judge failed to follow the model charge on reasonable doubt set out in R. v. Lifchus.

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