Lucas Rebick

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

He argued that the second information, which added an impaired driving charge, was a nullity because the swearing officer relied solely on a presumption of good faith from the Crown's request rather than objective facts.

The Superior Court found that while the officer inadvertently swore a false oath, binding jurisprudence dictates the information is not a nullity.

Although the practice breached section 7 of the Charter and warranted a stay of the impaired driving charge, the remedy was moot as the appellant had been acquitted of that charge at trial.

The appeal against the over 80 conviction was dismissed.

The accused was tried on multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under sixteen, assault causing bodily harm, and common assault arising from a two‑year relationship with a complainant who was between 12 and 14 years old.

The Crown relied primarily on the complainant’s testimony supported by circumstantial evidence from family members, caseworkers, photographs, and other witnesses describing the accused’s possessive and violent conduct.

The defence argued the complainant fabricated the allegations and attacked her credibility based on inconsistencies in prior statements.

The court found the inconsistencies were explainable and did not undermine the overall credibility of the complainant.

The court concluded the Crown proved all essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and entered convictions on all counts.