Tony C. Paisana

The accused appealed his perjury conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge misapprehended evidence.

A majority of the Court dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons given by the majority in the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

A dissenting judge would have ordered a new trial for substantially the reasons of the dissent below.

The conviction was upheld.

In this criminal appeal, the accused challenged a perjury conviction arising from testimony given at an inquest following a conducted-energy-weapon incident at an airport.

The accused argued unreasonable verdict, misapprehension of evidence, issue estoppel, and abuse of process, including the Crown’s pursuit of an alleged collusion theory.

The Court held that no reviewable factual error or misapprehension was established and upheld the conviction substantially for the provincial appellate reasons.

A dissenting justice would have ordered a new trial on the basis that the collusion finding was unreasonable and tainted other findings.