Debbie Calderwood

The appellant appealed his convictions for kidnapping, robbery, extortion, and unlawful confinement, as well as his six-year sentence.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal showing that one of the complainants had a criminal record and used aliases, contrary to the complainant's testimony at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the fresh evidence failed the Palmer test because it could have been discovered with due diligence and would not have reasonably affected the verdict given the strong corroborating identification and cell phone evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the overall sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction for one count of sexual assault and his sentence of 29 months' imprisonment.

He argued that the jury's guilty verdict on one count and acquittal on another were inconsistent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdicts reconcilable because the complainant's delayed disclosure regarding the second count could have raised a reasonable doubt.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the 29-month term was within the appropriate range.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault against a developmentally challenged woman.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the complainant's credibility, specifically a prior false complaint, and unfairly discounted his own evidence.

The appellant also applied to admit fresh evidence of alleged statements by the complainant recanting her allegations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility and concluding that the proposed fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test for admission.

The appellant appealed his conviction from the Youth Justice Court, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended his evidence and the evidence of his co-accused.

The appellant contended the trial judge erred in finding he did not testify to asking the complainant if she was 'okay' during the sexual activity, and misstated who removed the complainant's pants.

The Court of Appeal found no material misapprehension of evidence that would warrant appellate intervention.

The trial judge's minor misstatement of fact was deemed irrelevant to the overall credibility assessment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of assault and two counts of uttering threats against his wife.

His summary conviction appeal was dismissed, though his sentence was varied to a conditional discharge.

He sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and failed to consider inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the summary conviction appeal court judge's conclusion that the trial judge's credibility findings were entitled to deference and supported by the record.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault against a nine-year-old complainant.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons for both conviction and sentence to be inadequate.

However, the conviction was upheld because the appellant's own testimony admitted to an act of fellatio, and his explanation that the child initiated it while he slept was rejected as incapable of belief.

Because the trial judge's factual findings regarding other sexual acts were unclear, the Court of Appeal proceeded on the basis of a single act of fellatio.

The appeal from sentence was allowed, and the sentence was reduced from four years and seven months to 15 months, taking into account seven months of pre-sentence custody.

The appellant was convicted of possession and distribution of child pornography and sentenced to one year concurrent on each charge, plus two years' probation.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred by imposing a custodial sentence rather than a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and holding that the objectives of denunciation and deterrence could not be adequately addressed by a conditional sentence given the overwhelming volume and horrific nature of the materials.