The appellant appealed an assault conviction from the Ontario Court of Justice, arguing that the trial judge erred in applying the rule in Browne v. Dunn by concluding that defence counsel failed to put certain contradictory propositions to Crown witnesses in cross-examination.
The appellant submitted that the rule was misapplied and that any alleged deficiency in cross-examination did not justify undermining the defence evidence.
The reviewing judge held that although the trial judge raised and analyzed the Browne v. Dunn rule and relevant authorities, the reasons as a whole showed that the trial judge ultimately declined to apply the rule against the accused.
The conviction rested on credibility findings favouring the complainant and a corroborating witness.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
