Cara Barbisan

The appellant, who suffered from schizophrenia and represented himself at trial, appealed his first-degree murder conviction.

He argued he was unfit to stand trial and urged the Court of Appeal to overturn or modify the 'limited cognitive capacity' test from R. v. Taylor to require that an accused be capable of making rational decisions in their best interests.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Taylor test, clarifying that while an accused must have a reality-based understanding of their legal predicament and the ability to make decisions, they need not possess 'analytic capacity' to make decisions in their own best interests.

The Court also dismissed grounds of appeal relating to the voluntariness of statements made to a Crown psychiatrist and refused to admit fresh psychiatric evidence to substitute a verdict of not criminally responsible.

The appellant appealed convictions for multiple historical sexual offences against the daughter of his former common law partner, alleged to have occurred between the complainant’s ages of five and sixteen.

The appeal argued that the trial judge committed three errors in assessing the appellant’s evidence: drawing a negative inference from his lack of recollection of a potential CAS investigation, improperly relying on demeanour when evaluating his denials, and criticizing his failure to address specific allegations.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge’s concerns about the appellant’s explanations were logical and permissible and that his treatment of the denials was consistent with the framework in R. v. W.(D.).

The court further held that the trial judge ultimately based the convictions on a reasoned acceptance of the complainant’s credible and reliable testimony beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed.