J. Makepeace

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge applied different standards of scrutiny to the evidence, misapprehended his evidence, and reversed the burden of proof.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessments were entitled to deference, there was no misapprehension of evidence, and the trial judge's approach to the complainant's inconsistencies was measured and fair.

The court also found no reversal of the burden of proof regarding the Agreed Statement of Fact.

The applicant, a doctor, applied to sever a three-count indictment alleging sexual assaults against two different complainants (a patient and a co-worker) occurring years apart.

The applicant argued that joinder would cause prejudice and improper propensity reasoning.

The Crown opposed, arguing the evidence was intertwined and a viable similar fact application would be brought.

The court dismissed the application, finding a factual and legal nexus between the counts, and concluded that in a judge-alone trial, the risk of prejudice could be managed with appropriate evidentiary rulings.

The applicant, charged with child pornography offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The court found no breach of ss. 8 or 10, as the police questioning at his home did not constitute a search or psychological detention.

However, the court found breaches of s. 9, due to an arbitrary three-day detention based on faulty police information, and s. 7, due to mistreatment in custody including the denial of medication for his obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Despite these breaches, the court dismissed the application for a stay, concluding that the prejudice could be adequately addressed through other remedies, such as a sentence reduction if convicted.

The appellant, a high school math teacher, appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a 16-year-old student.

He argued the trial judge erred by treating a cross-examination question as evidence, failing to address improbabilities in the complainant's evidence, and attaching no weight to his good character evidence.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that any error regarding the cross-examination question was harmless, the trial judge's credibility assessments were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and the trial judge did not err in her treatment of the character evidence given the private nature of the offences.