Jane Magri

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and assault with a weapon against his wife and son.

He argued the trial judge erred in applying the W.(D.) framework, improperly shifted the burden of proof, and failed to adequately address inconsistencies in the Crown's evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof, adequately explained his credibility findings, and reasonably addressed material inconsistencies in the testimony.

During a criminal trial for sexual assault and sexual exploitation arising from alleged touching of a student, the Crown sought to introduce evidence of other alleged sexually inappropriate remarks and gestures by the accused toward students.

The Crown argued the evidence formed part of the contextual narrative and was probative of whether the touching was sexual rather than innocent.

The court held that the proposed evidence relied on impermissible general propensity reasoning rather than a specific similar‑fact inference.

Concerns about potential collusion and contamination among witnesses further undermined any probative value.

Given the significant risk of moral and reasoning prejudice, the court excluded the evidence.