M.C. Halfyard

The appellant appealed his conviction for wilfully killing a dog without lawful excuse.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in law by placing the burden on the accused to prove lawful excuse on a balance of probabilities.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code applied.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the error engaged fundamental principles of criminal law and that the case against the accused was not so overwhelming that a properly instructed jury would have inevitably convicted.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against a 14-year-old paperboy.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding a doorbell and a request for toilet paper, and failed to properly apply W.D. principles to evidence favourable to the defence.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably assessed the evidentiary conflicts and properly applied the burden of proof.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, which allegedly occurred on a commercial flight while the complainant was sleeping.

The summary conviction appeal court found that the trial judge erred by failing to adequately address the reliability of the complainant's evidence, improperly discounting the appellant's good character evidence, and engaging in impermissible speculation by taking judicial notice of the aircraft's seat configuration without evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of assaulting his former domestic partner.

At trial, the judge restricted the defence's cross-examination of the complainant regarding her prior sexual history and the duration of the alleged assault, citing section 276 of the Criminal Code and the twin myths.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found that section 276 does not apply to common assault prosecutions and that the trial judge's restrictions materially impaired the appellant's right to make full answer and defence.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.