2 total
Convictions quashed for inadequate reasons and wrongful exclusion of defence evidence.
Summary conviction appeal from four assault convictions arising out of allegations by a spouse in the context of a deteriorating marriage and related family-law conflict.
The court held that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate because they did not meaningfully grapple with the live and central issue of motive to fabricate, despite a substantial evidentiary record bearing on animus, separation, removal from the matrimonial home, and pending family proceedings.
The court also held that the trial judge erred by preventing the self-represented accused from calling two defence witnesses after incorrectly treating the anticipated evidence as inadmissible hearsay, rather than hearing the evidence and ruling on admissibility as it emerged.
The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered on all four counts.
The accused's statement was excluded as involuntary due to partial cautions and potential inducements.
The court considered the admissibility of two statements made by Lovepreet Singh, charged with dangerous driving causing death.
The first was a roadside statement to police while Singh was being treated for burns; the second was an audio-recorded statement at the hospital.
The Crown sought to admit only the hospital statement.
The court found that the Crown had not proven voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, citing concerns about an unrecorded pre-statement conversation, a partial caution, and potential inducement.
The hospital statement was excluded as involuntary.
