The appellant appealed his convictions for human trafficking, criminal harassment, and failure to comply with probation, as well as his subsequent dangerous offender designation and sentence.
He argued that the trial judge erred in admitting and relying on the complainant's prior inconsistent statements to police, and that the sentencing judge erred in finding his violent behaviour to be intractable.
The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding no circular reasoning or improper reliance on demeanour by the trial judge, and concluding that the trial judge's rejection of the complainant's recantation was functionally equivalent to a W.(D.) analysis.
The Court also upheld the dangerous offender designation, finding that the sentencing judge properly assessed the evidence of intractability.
Consequently, both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.
