L. Charron

The appellant appealed a sexual assault conviction, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended material evidence and that the finding of guilt was unreasonable.

The appeal focused on the complainant's post-incident police statement, conflicting evidence from another witness about a prior incident, and an alleged motive to fabricate arising from employment circumstances.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge considered each point, was entitled to accept and reject portions of the evidence as he did, and gave clear and persuasive reasons.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for three counts of fraud under $5,000 and sought leave to appeal sentence.

He argued that the original trial could not properly proceed by summary conviction, despite defence consent, and challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence and the fitness of sentence.

The court held that s. 786(2) of the Criminal Code is procedural and authorized the mode of proceeding adopted, with no resulting jurisdictional defect.

It further held that the evidence supported the convictions and that the sentence was fit.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, leave to appeal sentence was granted, and the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking following a jury trial.

The court held that the trial judge applied the wrong approach in refusing to reopen the defence case to allow the appellant's wife to testify on a material issue central to the defence.

Applying the governing test for reopening the evidence, the proposed testimony was plainly relevant and its admission would have caused no real prejudice to the Crown.

The refusal deprived the appellant of the right to make full answer and defence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed an 18-month sentence imposed following conviction for criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to give proper effect to restorative justice principles and should have imposed a conditional sentence.

The court held the sentencing judge had fully considered the relevant sentencing principles later articulated in Proulx, and that a custodial sentence was entirely appropriate given the highly dangerous conduct and the serious injuries to the complainant.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.