The appellant, who was self-represented at trial, appealed her conviction and sentence for social assistance fraud.
She argued that the trial judge's excessive intervention during her testimony prevented her from presenting her case, amounted to cross-examination creating an apprehension of bias, and that he failed to provide adequate assistance.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no prejudice or apprehension of bias, and noting the trial judge went to great lengths to assist her.
The sentence appeal, challenging a restitution order of $25,281 at a minimum of $100 per month, was also dismissed as the appellant had full-time employment, home equity, and the quantum of loss was supported by evidence.
