The appellant was convicted of assaulting his mother-in-law and father-in-law following a family dispute.
The trial judge relied on the appellant's failure to apologize after colliding with his mother-in-law as post-offence conduct to infer intent and reject his claim that the contact was accidental.
On appeal, the Crown conceded that neither the appellant nor the victim was asked about an apology during their testimony.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in making this finding and using it to assess credibility and intent.
The court declined to apply the curative proviso, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.
