The appellant appealed his summary conviction for assault and failing to comply with a probation order, arising from an incident where he spat on a security guard while being escorted out of a building.
He argued the trial judge erred in applying the W. (D) framework and impermissibly relied on a witness's lack of exaggeration to bolster credibility.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the W. (D) principles by providing a reasoned basis for accepting the strong Crown evidence, which included independent witness testimony and video surveillance.
The court also held the trial judge did not err in noting the absence of exaggeration in the security guard's testimony, as it was a responsive observation to the defence's theory.
