Kenneth Madsen

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and uttering threats after beating the victim with a baseball bat.

He appealed, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, specifically regarding whether the victim's life was endangered.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, affirming the stringent standard from R. v. Morrissey.

The Court held that to set aside a conviction, a misapprehension of evidence must go to the substance rather than detail, and must play an essential part in the reasoning process resulting in the conviction.

The Crown brought a motion to quash the accused's appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Crown argued that the dissent in the Court of Appeal did not raise a question of law.

The Supreme Court dismissed the motion, finding that the dissenting opinion, which concluded that misapprehensions of evidence on credibility resulted in an unfair trial and a miscarriage of justice, was properly construed as a dissent on a question of law.