2 total
The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions and sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's similar fact ruling or credibility assessments.
The appellant appealed both his conviction and sentence from the Ontario Court of Justice.
On the conviction appeal, the appellant raised two grounds: that the trial judge erred in her similar fact ruling regarding collusion between complainants, and that the trial judge unevenly scrutinized the evidence of the complainants versus the appellant's evidence.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly considered the possibility of innocent collusion, made findings on the extent of discussions between complainants that were supported by the record, and properly assessed credibility.
The appellant's defence of shady business dealings was found to lack credibility and was contradicted by corporate documents.
Both the conviction appeal and sentence appeal were dismissed.
Conviction for historic sexual assault set aside due to trial judge's impermissible speculation about uncalled evidence.
The appellant appealed his conviction for the historic assault and sexual assault of his stepdaughter.
At trial, the judge repeatedly commented on the Crown's failure to call the complainant's older sisters and drew inferences about the family dynamics and the sisters' quick response to the allegations.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge impermissibly speculated about possible abuse of the older sisters by the appellant and used this speculation to bolster the complainant's credibility.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.
