The appellant, R.M., appealed convictions for attempted abduction of his son and assault of another boy.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the actus reus of attempted abduction by failing to apply s. 24(2) of the Criminal Code, which designates this as a question of law for the judge.
The court quashed the attempted abduction conviction and substituted it with a conviction for unlawful confinement, lifting the conditional stay on that charge.
The appeal against the assault conviction was dismissed, as were arguments regarding unlawful confinement jury instructions.
