Susan G. Ficek

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault of a 13-year-old complainant he met on a dating website.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in his credibility assessments, including his reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence, his use of a friend's evidence to corroborate the complainant's allegations, and his finding that the complainant had no motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility findings and concluding that the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) test.

The appellant, a home renovation contractor, appealed his convictions for fraud over $5,000 and theft.

He had persuaded an elderly, vulnerable homeowner to enter into contracts totaling over $300,000 for renovations on a house worth $400,000, grossly overcharging her.

The Court of Appeal upheld the fraud conviction, finding that the overcharging, combined with taking advantage of the victim, constituted 'other fraudulent means'.

However, the court set aside the theft conviction, ruling that because the victim intended to part with her money (albeit induced by fraud), the appellant could not be convicted of both theft and fraud for the same funds.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching, arguing the trial judge's reasons were insufficient, misapprehended the evidence, and applied an uneven standard of scrutiny.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons permitted meaningful appellate review and properly assessed the credibility of the complainant and the appellant's police statement.