C.J. submits that the trial judge (1) erred by considering inadmissible character evidence, (2) improperly shifted the onus of proof respecting C.J.’s alibi, (3) misapprehended the evidence which caused a miscarriage of justice and (4) recorded convictions on both ss. 151 and 152 counts, contrary to Kienapple v. R., 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729. The parties reconstituted the fourth ground based on a discussion at the appeal hearing that resolved earlier ambiguity about the number of counts for which C.J. had been convicted.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.