Lauren M. Wilhelm

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference involving a child.

At trial, the evidence of the complainant and the appellant was diametrically opposed.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, stating that the two versions could not both be true and rejecting the appellant's evidence based on her acceptance of the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred by treating the case as a credibility contest rather than assessing whether the evidence as a whole raised a reasonable doubt, and by misapplying the principles for rejecting an accused's evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference involving two young children.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury against using evidence relating to one complainant as propensity evidence for the other, and by admitting hearsay statements.

The Court of Appeal found no error in admitting the hearsay statements but held that the failure to provide a limiting instruction on cross-count propensity reasoning was a fatal error.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The respondent conceded the sentence was illegal, as the offence is a 'serious personal injury offence' under s. 752 of the Criminal Code, precluding a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted an 18-month custodial sentence.

The Court granted one-for-one credit for the five months and ten days the respondent had already served under house arrest, resulting in a net sentence of 12 months.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence imposed on the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conditional sentence, and substituted a sentence of 12 months' incarceration followed by two years of probation.