The appellant appealed his convictions for breach of undertaking, sexual assault, and uttering threats against his ex-partner.
He argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, that the Crown improperly cross-examined him on the details of his prior convictions, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Court of Appeal found that while the Crown's cross-examination on the appellant's criminal record was improper, it did not unduly influence the trial judge's credibility assessment or lead to a miscarriage of justice.
The court also rejected the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, finding no merit in the allegations.
The appeal from conviction was dismissed, and leave to appeal the sentence was denied.
