John Collins

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for sexual offences, including child pornography, involving a 15-year-old complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's actions regarding consent, failed to properly apply the W.(D.) framework for credibility, and misused recent complaint evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge adequately explained why the complainant's trauma negated consent, properly rejected the appellant's evidence, and correctly admitted the recent complaint as narrative and demeanour evidence.

The conviction for child pornography was upheld as the trial judge rejected the appellant's claim that the complainant said she was 18.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The Crown appealed a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision that had overturned the respondent's conviction for having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

The trial judge had found that there was a risk of danger because the respondent might continue her journey once her vehicle was pulled from the ditch.

The Court of Appeal held that this finding was open to the trial judge on the evidence and that the Summary Conviction Appeal Judge erred in interfering with it.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence were restored.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder following the death of his wife, which the Crown alleged was a staged suicide via drug overdose and blunt force trauma.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on after-the-fact conduct and the absence of proven motive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury instructions were adequate and properly summarized the defence's position.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a vicious and unprovoked assault that left the victim with serious injuries and permanent disability.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to refer to two witnesses' evidence, by accepting the identification evidence of a specific witness, and by refusing to allow proof of a prior inconsistent statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's reasons or evidentiary rulings, and upholding the sentence given the severity of the attack.

The young person appellants appealed their findings of guilt and dispositions for assault with a weapon involving a machete.

They argued the trial judge intervened excessively, failed to properly apply the W.(D.) framework, and reached unreasonable verdicts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the trial judge's interventions did not render the trial unfair and his credibility findings were sound.

The disposition appeals were also dismissed, as the sentences were fit given the unprovoked nature of the violent assault and the appellants' status on bail at the time.

The appellants were convicted of sexually assaulting two 15-year-old complainants.

The trial judge found that the complainants' bizarre and contradictory evidence was due to 'bolus drinking' and relied on a letter written by one complainant to find a lack of consent.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, as one complainant had consumed very little alcohol, and the letter suggested consensual activity that was later regretted.

The Court set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial, finding that while the trial judge erred, the verdicts were not unreasonable.

The accused was charged with robbing a convenience store.

The only evidence identifying the accused as the robber was a security camera videotape, as the store clerk could not positively identify him.

The trial judge convicted the accused based solely on her own comparison of the videotape and the accused in court.

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, finding it unreasonable without corroborating testimony.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that a trier of fact may identify an accused based solely on clear and convincing videotape evidence without the need for corroborating witness testimony.