John O’Halloran

The appellant, Cody Boast, appealed his conviction for uttering threats and breach of probation.

The appeal court first addressed and dismissed the appellant's motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it either irrelevant, not sufficiently cogent to affect the verdict, or lacking a proper explanation for its late production.

On the merits of the appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in law, misapprehended facts, and failed to properly weigh the evidence, specifically regarding the mens rea element of the uttering threats charge.

The court rejected claims of collusion among Crown witnesses and upheld the trial judge's credibility findings.

While acknowledging the trial judge's reasons on mens rea were brief, the appeal court found them sufficient to demonstrate that the trial judge understood and addressed the requirement for the Crown to prove the appellant knowingly made the threat.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's request for costs was also denied.

The appellant appealed an NCRMD verdict for uttering threats and breaching a probation order.

At trial, the verdict was based on a psychiatric assessment diagnosing the appellant with schizophrenia.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence from new psychiatrists indicating he was misdiagnosed and actually suffered from bipolar disorder, and that his psychosis at the time of the offence was substance-induced.

The court admitted the fresh evidence under the Palmer test, finding the original diagnosis was incorrect.

The court set aside the NCRMD verdict, entered a conviction, and imposed a sentence of one day, noting the appellant had already spent 28 months in a secure psychiatric facility.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault causing bodily harm and breach of recognizance arising from a parking lot altercation.

The trial judge had ruled that the complainant could not have consented to a fight because of the nature of the injuries sustained.

The appeal court found this was an error of law, as one cannot consent to the intentional infliction of bodily harm, but the mere fact that bodily harm resulted does not automatically vitiate consent.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

Criminal trial involving multiple counts of assault, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and break, enter and commit sexual assault arising from intimate partner relationships with two complainants.

The court found both complainants credible and reliable, held that actual subjective consent was absent when sexual activity continued after express protests, and rejected any implied or mistaken belief in consent under ss. 273.1 and 273.2 of the Criminal Code.

The court also rejected the defence theory of collusion, finding the similarities in the complainants’ evidence were not the product of tainting and could be considered consistently with appellate authority.

Convictions were entered on seven counts, with one count dismissed during trial and one resulting in an acquittal.