in person

The appellant appealed his convictions for unlawful confinement, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and choking with intent, as well as his sentence.

On the conviction appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's decision to permit cross-examination on his prior conviction for attempted murder under the Corbett framework, and alleged improper Crown conduct during cross-examination and closing argument.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion to allow the cross-examination given the defence's all-out attack on the complainant's credibility and the absence of other evidence to neutralize that attack.

The Crown's conduct was found to be vigorous but proper advocacy.

On the sentence appeal, the Crown conceded that the dangerous offender hearing should have proceeded under post-2008 legislation but sought to uphold the designation under the curative proviso.

The Court of Appeal rejected this submission, finding that the curative proviso was unavailable due to significant evidentiary overlap between the designation and sentencing stages and the possibility that fresh evidence could affect the designation determination.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order in favour of the respondent bank for approximately $275,000 in debt owed by a corporation and guaranteed by the appellants on a joint and several basis.

The appellants' counterclaim was based on allegations that they relied on advice from the bank's small business advisor who failed to warn them of problems in establishing and operating their Second Cup franchise.

The motion judge found the advisor played a limited role, the appellants did not rely exclusively on the advisor, and the appellants had signed documentation limiting the bank's liability.

The motion judge also found no causal connection between any alleged failures by the bank and the failure of the business.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sentence of two years' imprisonment plus one year of probation.

At the appeal hearing, the appellant abandoned his sentence appeal and focused on the conviction appeal.

The appellant contended that the trial judge erred in finding that he was a person in a position of trust within the meaning of s. 273.1(2)(c) of the Criminal Code, arguing that if this finding was incorrect, the complainant could have consented to the sexual activity.

The Court of Appeal rejected this submission, finding that the complainant's clear and uncontradicted testimony established a long-standing relationship of trust and dependency, which the appellant abused.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought an order of mandamus for a new pre-enquete hearing after a Justice of the Peace refused to issue process on a private information alleging perjury against a police officer.

The applicants argued the Justice of the Peace was biased, lost jurisdiction by refusing to hear evidence, and denied natural justice.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error, bias, or breach of procedural fairness.

The court also noted that the application was vexatious and an abuse of process, as the applicants were attempting to re-litigate a matter previously decided by another judge.