October 19th, 2017
Sexual assault trial. Accused testified, but his evidence did not give rise to a reasonable doubt. However, the Court had concerns about the reliability / credibility of the complainant’s evidence given his “admission of memory issues and perception problems as a consequence of his addiction to methamphetamine”. Held: Acquitted. “It is essential that the rights … Read More.
July 4th, 2017
Accused charged with two counts of engaging in conduct to provoke fear in a justice system participant (a prosecutor and a probation officer), contrary to s. 423.1(1) CC. Following a conviction for assault, accused made disparaging remarks in the courtroom to the prosecutor, including a remark to the effect that he lived in the same … Read More.
March 2nd, 2017
Trial on a charge of robbery. While intoxicated, accused became involved in a dispute with a cab driver regarding a fare. Accused felt that he was owed 85 cents. Both parties got out of the cab and started to fight. Accused then produced a metal weed pipe, and threatened the cab driver. Accused eventually re-entered … Read More.
November 23rd, 2016
Appeal from conviction for break and enter into a rural dwelling. Issue as to whether the Crown was required to call all of those who had access to the property, to negate any reasonable doubt regarding consent or permission to enter the property. Held: Appeal dismissed. Home owners testified to returning home and finding the … Read More.
December 7th, 2015
Appeal from careless driving conviction under TSA. Accused hit a vehicle (while speeding) on a freeway that had run out of gas. Trial judge made credibility findings contrary to the accused’s account. Held: Appeal dismissed. Proof of offence requires that the accused drove in a manner prohibited by legislation, and that the conduct was of … Read More.
February 3rd, 2015
Defence appeal from dangerous driving conviction. Issue as to whether the actus reus of dangerous driving requires that the lives or safety of people actually be endangered. Held: Appeal dismissed. “As for the Appellant’s specific argument that the actus reus that constitutes dangerous driving cannot be found where a road is little traveled and no … Read More.