The appellant appealed his conviction for criminal harassment under s. 264 of the Criminal Code and the sentence of a suspended sentence with three years probation.
He advanced numerous grounds of appeal, including improper questioning during trial, inadequate disclosure, misapprehension of evidence, judicial bias, and errors in law.
The court held that the impugned questioning was relevant to the defence of lawful authority and that no disclosure issue affecting the fairness of the trial was established.
Although a minor factual error was identified in the trial judge’s description of an earlier altercation, it was not material and did not affect the verdict.
The court found no reasonable apprehension of bias, no error in law, and concluded the conviction and sentence were reasonable.