The appellant, Thomy Baez-Eusebio, appealed his convictions for assault, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and uttering threats, arguing the trial judge erred in applying the principles of R. v. W.(D.) and provided insufficient reasons.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons, though brief, were sufficient in context and clearly explained the pathway to conviction by rejecting the appellant's evidence and accepting the Crown witnesses' accounts, which were consistent with video evidence.
The court found the inconsistencies in Crown witness testimony to be minor and peripheral.
