Tracy L. Kozlowski

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by a jury.

The Court of Appeal found the jury verdict unreasonable, as the conclusion that the appellant was a party to the offence relied on mere speculation that the transaction was fraudulent from the outset or that the appellant aided the transaction after it was shown to be fraudulent.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and an acquittal entered.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the jury charge was misleading regarding credibility findings across counts, the consent instructions should have been tailored, and the trial judge erred in findings of fact for sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury instructions were adequate and standard.

The court also granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the appeal, holding the trial judge's findings of fact were well explained and open to him.