The appellant was convicted of assault against his wife, A.B., based on her testimony corroborated by date-stamped photographs, despite the trial judge having reasonable doubt on related firearm charges due to credibility concerns with the complainant and another witness.
The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge's reasons were insufficient, claiming an illogical result from incompatible findings.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that while the trial judge's reasons could have been clearer in explaining the differing credibility findings across distinct charges, it was permissible for the judge to accept parts of a witness's testimony when supported by other evidence.
The court affirmed that the verdict was not unreasonable under the Beaudry/Sinclair test, as the findings were distinct and supported by the evidence.
The sentence appeal was abandoned.