S. Clarke

The appellant appealed his conviction for possessing ammunition while prohibited, arguing the trial judge misapplied the principles of circumstantial evidence by failing to consider plausible alternative explanations for how bullets ended up in his jacket.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly rejected the appellant's alternative theories as speculative rather than reasonable possibilities based on the evidence.

The court also rejected arguments that the trial judge reversed the onus of proof or provided insufficient reasons.

Manuel Franco appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault and two counts of assault.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to reconcile adverse credibility findings regarding the complainant with the acceptance of other parts of her testimony, that the verdicts were unreasonable, and that the reasons were insufficient.

He also submitted that the trial judge erred in relying on a prior consistent statement.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered the complainant's credibility issues, that the verdicts were reasonable, and that the reasons were sufficient for appellate review.

The court also found no consequential error in the use of prior consistent statements.

The appellant, Manpreet Sohal, appealed his conviction for impaired driving, challenging the trial judge's finding that he was the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident.

The appeal raised five grounds, including alleged failures by the trial judge to properly instruct himself on eyewitness identification frailties, misapprehension of evidence, failure to consider collusion, erroneous treatment of absence of embellishment, and improper inferences drawn from video evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the first four grounds.

While the trial judge erred in drawing certain inferences from the video footage without seeking submissions from counsel, this error was deemed to be of negligible weight and did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, Gilberto Montoya, appealed his convictions for assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown had disproven self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial judge found the appellant's response, using a belt buckle as a weapon, was disproportionate and unreasonable.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by finding he was acting in concert, failing to consider all factors under s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code, and applying an unrealistically stringent proportionality test.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the self-defence principles.

The plaintiffs, selling shareholders in a family-owned group of companies, brought an action against the non-selling shareholders, the companies' lawyers, and accountants.

They alleged breach of fiduciary duty, oppression, and knowing assistance arising from a share redemption transaction.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendants failed to disclose material information regarding the potential sale of a core asset to a third party at a higher value.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the share redemption was a product of self-interested negotiations where both sides had independent advice.

No ad hoc fiduciary duty was owed by the non-selling shareholders, lawyers, or accountants to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs' expectations were not reasonable under the oppression remedy.