Melanie Dunn

The appellant appealed a decision granting certiorari and mandamus, which had quashed a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to commit the appellant for trial on second degree murder rather than first degree murder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the reviewing justice erred by turning jurisdictional error into a sufficiency review.

The preliminary inquiry judge correctly applied the Arcuri test and was entitled to conclude that the evidence was insufficient for a committal on first degree murder.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking, arguing that he was unlawfully detained prior to a consent search that revealed crack cocaine, and that he was prejudiced by improper cross-examination and jury instructions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility findings precluded a finding of detention, and that any potential prejudice from the Crown's improper cross-examination was sufficiently offset by the jury charge.

The respondent was convicted at trial of threatening his wife and possessing a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace following a domestic dispute over property.

The summary conviction appeal judge quashed the convictions, finding them unreasonable.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the convictions, holding that the summary conviction appeal judge erred in law by substituting his own view of the evidence.

The trial judge's findings that the respondent uttered a threat and formed the unlawful purpose to use his pocket knife as a weapon prior to its use were supported by the evidence and not unreasonable.

The appellant, a 42-year-old school teacher, was convicted of sexual assault and sexual touching of a 13-year-old complainant he met on a chat line while pretending to be a 17-year-old.

He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable, the jury charge was unbalanced, and the trial judge erred in his instructions regarding child witnesses and in denying a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the verdicts reasonable, the jury charge fair overall, and a custodial sentence appropriate given the predatory nature of the offence.

The appellant challenged both conviction and sentence arising from historical sexual assault allegations made by his daughter.

The appeal focused on credibility findings, alleging reversal of the burden of proof, misuse of prior inconsistent statements, inadequate scrutiny of the complainant’s evidence, and misapprehension of evidence bearing on motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof and the W.(D.) framework to the evidence as a whole, permissibly inferred bias from independently proven statements, and was entitled to accept the complainant’s core evidence despite inconsistencies on peripheral matters.

The court also held the verdict was not unreasonable under the Biniaris standard and found no basis to interfere with sentence.

The appellant appealed a jury conviction for indecent assault arising from historical allegations of sexual touching said to have occurred when the complainant was between five and nine years old.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's charge to the jury contained serious errors concerning the permissible use of prior consistent statements, including failure to distinguish narrative use from use to rebut recent fabrication or address delay in complaint.

The court also held it was wrong to instruct that inconsistencies between witnesses could themselves be taken as a sign of credibility and that the charge overstated the defence theory as one of contrivance and concerted action.

Although the verdict was not unreasonable on the evidence, the cumulative effect of the charge errors required a new trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's findings of credibility were inconsistent, particularly given the complainant was a self-admitted manipulator and liar who had previously concocted a story of physical abuse.

The Court also found the trial judge's identification and analysis of corroborative evidence was flawed.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.