P. Pasloski

P.B. appealed convictions for two counts of sexual assault and two counts of assault with a weapon.

The appeal court found the trial judge erred in concluding the accused offered no evidence regarding consent for one sexual assault count (anal sex), leading to that conviction being set aside and a new trial ordered.

The court upheld the convictions for the other sexual assault and the two assault with a weapon charges, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's application of the R. v. W.(D.) framework or assessment of credibility.

The sentence for the remaining sexual assault conviction was reduced from 10 to 8 months due to the removal of an aggravating factor.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions and sentences for two counts of sexual assault and two counts of assault with a weapon against his former spouse.

He argued the trial judge misapplied the W. (D.) framework, provided inadequate reasons, and erred in sentencing.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal for the assault with a weapon counts and one sexual assault count, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and reasons sufficient.

However, the court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial for the second sexual assault count, finding the trial judge erred by concluding the appellant offered no evidence on consent when he had explicitly denied forcing himself on the complainant.

The sentence for the remaining sexual assault conviction was reduced from 10 months to 8 months.

The accused applied under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to review a justice of the peace’s detention order denying bail on the secondary ground.

The court considered whether there had been an error in principle or a material change in circumstances since the original bail hearing.

The applicant argued that a proposed surety was no longer supervising another accused and could better supervise him, and also challenged the strength of the Crown’s identification evidence.

The court found no error in principle and concluded the change regarding the surety was not material, particularly in light of the accused’s extensive criminal record and repeated breaches of court orders.

Even if the change were material, detention remained justified due to the high likelihood of reoffending and the serious nature of the alleged armed robberies.