Frances S. Brennan

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault involving two complainants.

He argued the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding the use of similar fact evidence across counts, the assessment of similarities and differences in the evidence, the possibility of collusion, and the assessment of the complainants' credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no prejudice in the omission of an express 'bad personhood' instruction and concluding the trial judge's instructions adequately equipped the jury to perform their adjudicative function.

The appellant appealed his total sentence of 4.5 years, comprising 3 years for a 10-year child abduction and 18 months consecutive for failing to appear.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was not excessive, noting the seriousness of the abduction and the aggravating circumstances of the failure to appear, which involved breaching an undertaking to the court to return the children.

The appeal was dismissed.

In a criminal appeal arising from a brutal home invasion assault on an elderly victim, one appellant challenged his convictions on the basis of deficient jury instructions on party liability under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code, while the other pursued only a sentence appeal.

The court held that the charge on common unlawful purpose was incomplete and misleading because it failed to explain the required elements of agreement, offence, and knowledge, and failed to instruct that the incidental offence had to be different from the original unlawful purpose.

The repeated deficiency in the recharge to the jury compounded the error.

The curative proviso did not apply because the evidence was not so overwhelming that a properly instructed jury would necessarily have convicted.

The conviction appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered for one appellant; leave to appeal sentence was granted to the other appellant, but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge failed to rigorously examine the reliability of the complainant's evidence and resolve inconsistencies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge fully appreciated the evidence, addressed the specific arguments raised by the defence, and was not obligated to resolve every inconsistency to arrive at a verdict.