E. Chozik

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for assault against his spouse.

Fresh evidence was admitted on appeal, including a forensic computer analysis showing that a key audio recording relied upon at trial had been altered and was not an original recording from the device as claimed.

Additional police occurrence report evidence contradicted the complainant’s claim that she reported an assault at the time police attended the residence.

The appellate court found the complainant had manipulated evidence and provided false testimony, undermining her credibility and the reliability of the trial verdict.

Given the absence of a reasonable prospect of conviction, the court quashed the conviction and entered an acquittal rather than ordering a new trial.

The appellant appealed convictions for three counts of sexual assault arising from incidents involving a workplace colleague.

The Crown conceded that two counts were outside the six‑month limitation period for summary conviction proceedings under s. 786(2) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal court set aside those two convictions and entered acquittals.

The appellant further argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, improperly relied on a prior consistent statement, and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence of the complainant and the accused.

The court rejected these grounds, finding no error in the trial judge’s credibility analysis or use of corroborative evidence, and dismissed the sentence appeal.