Law360 Canada ( May 28, 2026, 8:57 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant from conviction for aggravated assault. The appellant bit off part of the complainant’s pinkie finger during a physical altercation. The Crown called five witnesses at trial: the complainant, Marshall (the complainant’s husband at the time of the incident, who was present during the incident), and three investigating police officers. With the appellant’s consent, the Crown entered as an exhibit the warned/cautioned statement the appellant made to police the day after the incident. The appellant also testified in her own defence. At trial, the appellant argued that she should not have been criminally liable for this conduct on a number of bases, including self-defence, all of which the trial judge rejected. On appeal, the appellant argued that: the trial judge erred by failing to apply R. v. W. (D.) [D.(W.)] to the appellant’s warned/cautioned statement and, the trial judge materially misapprehended the evidence relating to the appellant’s memory of biting the complainant. The Crown opposed the application and argued that in the event that an error in the trial judge’s decision was identified, this Court should apply the curative proviso to sustain the conviction....