The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of uttering threats entered in the Ontario Court of Justice.
He argued that the trial judge misapplied the third branch of the W. (D.) credibility framework and effectively reversed the burden of proof by treating the case as a credibility contest and by improperly favouring police evidence.
The court held that the trial judge’s reasons, read as a whole, demonstrated an understanding and proper application of the W. (D.) analysis and that the judge was entitled to prefer the officers’ testimony.
Minor inconsistencies in the officers’ evidence were not material, and credibility findings were owed deference.
The appellate court found no palpable and overriding error or misapprehension of the evidence.
