The appellant appealed a summary conviction for assault contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code arising from allegations that he struck his spouse while driving.
The appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable, that the trial judge improperly dismissed defence evidence, misapprehended evidence, and failed to provide coherent reasons.
The court held that credibility determinations are primarily matters for the trier of fact and found no error in law or manifest error in the appreciation of the evidence.
Independent eyewitness testimony and corroborative observations by police supported the conviction.
The court concluded that the verdict was reasonably supported by the evidence and that the trial judge’s reasons were sufficient for appellate review.
