Simon McNaughton

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault causing bodily harm, common assault, and disobeying a court order against his domestic partner.

He argued the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for conviction and erred in finding bodily harm for one of the assaults involving strangulation.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons adequately addressed the substantive issues and credibility challenges, and that the evidence of strangulation causing pain and difficulty swallowing met the legal threshold for bodily harm.

The prosecution brought an application to elicit similar act evidence from a prior incident where the accused was originally charged with sexual assault but pleaded guilty to common assault.

The prosecution sought to call the prior complainant to testify that the assault was sexual in nature.

The court held that issue estoppel applies equally to acquittals flowing from a trial and those resulting from a guilty plea.

Because the accused was acquitted of sexual assault in the prior proceeding, the absence of a sexual element was conclusively determined in his favour.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg, arguing the trial judge erred by not excluding breathalyzer results due to alleged breaches of his right to privacy with counsel (s. 10(b)) and arbitrary detention (s. 9) for being held in custody for 7.5 hours until sober.

The Crown cross-appealed the trial judge's imposition of a conditional discharge, which was below the mandatory minimum fine, granted as a remedy for the s. 9 breach.

The Superior Court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant did not actually believe his privacy was compromised.

The court also reversed the trial judge's finding of a s. 9 breach, holding that binding appellate authority establishes that detaining an intoxicated person for their own protection does not constitute arbitrary detention.

Consequently, the Crown's cross-appeal was allowed, the conditional discharge was set aside, and the mandatory minimum $1,000 fine was imposed.