Stephanie L. Venne

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed P.P.'s appeal from convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault, finding that the trial judge erred in admitting irrelevant and prejudicial letters written years before the alleged offences and in permitting evidence of privileged marital communications without a valid waiver.

The cumulative effect of these errors undermined the credibility assessment of the defence and required a new trial.

The Appellant, S.V., appealed his conviction for sexual touching, arguing the trial judge failed to adequately consider inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and applied an uneven standard of scrutiny to the evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no significant error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility or the application of scrutiny, and affirmed the deference owed to the trial judge's findings.

The accused, Donald Wilhelm Parker, applied for a bail review to set aside a detention order, arguing that late disclosure of text messages constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court applied the Palmer criteria for material change and the St. Cloud standard of review.

It found that the text messages did not establish a material change and would not have altered the original detention decision, as they reinforced safety concerns for the complainant and her children.

The application for judicial interim release was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving, fleeing police, and assaulting a police officer, arguing that the trial judge's finding on identity was unreasonable.

The sole issue at trial was whether the appellant was the driver of the ATV involved in the incident.

The trial judge relied on the eyewitness identification by a police officer who had prior familiarity with the appellant and observed him face-to-face during the altercation.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the evidence and the trial judge's application of the principles regarding eyewitness identification.

The court found that the trial judge properly assessed the reliability of the identification evidence and that the verdict was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault under s. 266 of the Criminal Code following a domestic altercation.

He argued that the trial judge misapprehended material evidence and failed to properly consider the defence of consent arising from the complainant's conduct during the confrontation.

The appeal court held that the trial judge mischaracterized key aspects of the appellant’s testimony, including whether he was certain his hands did not slide to the complainant’s throat and whether he had instructed the complainant to leave the room.

These errors materially affected the credibility analysis and the application of the W.(D.) framework.

Because the misapprehension of evidence was substantive and central to the conviction, the court found a miscarriage of justice and ordered a new trial.