Sweta Tejpal

The appellant appealed convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in his credibility assessment by impermissibly using the absence of evidence of a motive to fabricate as proof of no motive, and by making blanket credibility findings without sufficient analysis of individual counts or conflicting evidence.

The court applied the curative proviso to one count (Count 6) but not others.

The appeal was allowed for four counts, with a new trial ordered for three and an acquittal entered for one.

Anand Dindyal was charged with 11 counts, including assault, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and mischief, primarily against Jennifer Hamp and one count against Larz Kovacevic.

The trial proceeded as a judge-alone trial.

The court assessed the credibility of witnesses, applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework.

The complainant, Jennifer Hamp, was found credible, while Dindyal's testimony was deemed contrived and implausible.

The court found Dindyal guilty on 10 of the 11 counts, dismissing one count of assault due to reasonable doubt regarding intentional contact.

Appeal from a conviction entered by the Superior Court of Justice on April 21, 2017 for historical sexual assault offences.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's evidence, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by failing to consider whether the complainant's testimony was the product of life experiences and an after-the-fact reconciliation of dreams with actual events, and by improperly considering rumours evidence.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding that the trial judge carefully considered and properly rejected the appellant's submissions.

The court determined that the appellant's arguments constituted a challenge to the reasonableness of the verdicts, which were not unreasonable given the trial judge's assessment of credibility and the application of the burden of proof.

Saad Fouad was found guilty of robbery.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentencing.

The court considered aggravating factors, such as the premeditated nature of the robbery and the fear induced in the victims, and mitigating factors, including Fouad's youth, first-time offender status at the time of the offence, and expressed remorse.

Despite subsequent convictions, the court balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, ultimately imposing a six-month imprisonment followed by two years of probation.

Saad Fouad was charged with robbery and using an imitation firearm.

The court found him guilty of robbery, determining that an implied threat of violence existed based on the totality of circumstances, including leading the victim to a dark, secluded area where a second individual brandished an object perceived as a gun.

However, he was found not guilty of using an imitation firearm because the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the individual who brandished the object, as witness testimony indicated it was the second male, not Fouad.

The defendant was charged with wilfully failing to inform the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of a material change in circumstances in connection with her entitlement to benefits within 10 days after the change occurred, contrary to section 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The defendant had been receiving benefits for work-related back injuries and depression since 2007.

The prosecution presented surveillance evidence showing the defendant engaging in numerous independent activities (driving, shopping, attending events) during June 1-6, 2011, which contradicted her reported condition of severe pain and limited mobility.

The court found that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence, rejecting the defendant's arguments regarding language barriers and medication effects.

The defendant was convicted.