Rosalind E. Conway

The offender was convicted by a jury of assault and assault causing bodily harm against his former intimate partner.

The assaults occurred years apart, with one resulting in fractured ribs.

The Crown sought six to eight months of incarceration, while the offender sought a non-custodial or intermittent sentence.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for domestic violence, the court sentenced the offender to 122 days in custody followed by two years of probation.

The appellant appealed from convictions and sentence, arguing the trial judge provided inadequate reasons, misapprehended evidence regarding online communications, and failed to properly consider inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the reasons adequate under the Dinardo standard, no misapprehension of evidence, and no error in the trial judge's treatment of inconsistencies.

The sentence was also upheld as fit.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on two counts of dangerous driving causing death.

The respondent lost control of his vehicle, striking a concrete pillar and killing two passengers.

The trial judge found the only evidence was excessive speed and, relying on R. v. Pezzo, concluded speed alone could not ground a conviction.

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in law, clarifying that excessive speed can constitute dangerous driving depending on the context.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing errors in the trial judge's charge to the jury regarding the effects of intoxication and the common sense inference, as well as errors in the Crown's re-examination of the complainant.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no significant error in the jury charge and agreeing with the Court of Appeal that any error in the re-examination did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.