The appellant appealed her conviction for criminal harassment against her former domestic partner.
The trial judge had convicted the self-represented appellant after rejecting her evidence and accepting the complainant's evidence.
On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge failed to properly apply the third step of the W.(D.) test and provided insufficient reasons regarding the elements of the offence, specifically whether the complainant was repeatedly followed and whether the appellant had the requisite mens rea.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.
