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 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.