Robert M. Kozak

The appellant appealed convictions for assault and uttering a threat arising from an altercation with his intimate partner in a confined kitchen space.

He argued that the trial judge failed to properly apply the credibility analysis required by R. v. W.(D.) and improperly relied on credibility findings to reject his evidence.

The appellant further submitted that the conduct, even if intentional, should have been treated as trivial under the maxim de minimis non curat lex.

The court held that the trial judge correctly assessed credibility, considered the evidence as a whole, and provided alternative reasoning demonstrating that the conduct constituted a non‑consensual touching amounting to assault.

The factual findings supporting the uttering threats conviction were also supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams, arguing that police breached her Charter s. 10(b) right to counsel by failing to advise her of the availability of French-speaking duty counsel.

The trial judge had found that the appellant understood both English and French, indicated no language preference, and did not raise any concern when speaking with English-speaking duty counsel.

The appellate court held that the police satisfied both the informational and implementational components of the right to counsel and that no special circumstances required further inquiry into language preference.

The court also held that the appellant failed to exercise reasonable diligence in raising any alleged difficulty with counsel.

The conviction was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.