Yaroslav Mikitchook

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that the summary conviction appeal court erred in failing to so find.

The appeal centered on the trial judge's rejection of the appellant's explanation for moving a bed, which the trial judge found was belied by videotape evidence.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the photographic copy of the videotape and concluded it was open to a reasonable trier of fact to reach the trial judge's conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for defamation.

The trial judge preferred the evidence of a witness who recorded the appellant's comments, concluding the words left the clear inference that the respondent was guilty of corrupt and criminal behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the high standard of deference owed to a trial judge's findings of fact.