Robert J. Upsdell

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, uttering a death threat, attempting to choke, and extortion.

The trial judge's reasons were very brief and simply adopted the Crown's submissions in their entirety.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge misapprehended evidence, failed to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence in a case turning on credibility, and improperly treated the case as a credibility contest.

The appellant appealed his conviction for having care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument that breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable.

However, the Court agreed that the trial judge erred by considering the appellant's roadside statements when assessing his credibility regarding 'evidence to the contrary'.

Finding the curative proviso inapplicable, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed her conviction for sexual assault, arguing the defence of duress.

The appellant's common law spouse had ordered her pre-teen son to have intercourse with her, and she was a co-perpetrator of the assaults.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the defence of duress was not applicable because it is only relevant where an accused is liable as a party, not as a co-perpetrator.