R v Mendoza

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, abca, 2026abca294, 2026 abca 294 (canlii), 2026, abca, 294, (canlii), 2503-0074a, 2026, criminal and statutory offences, appeals from conviction, unreasonable verdict, circumstantial evidence, whether trial judge failed to consider reasonable exculpatory inferences from evidence and absence of evidence, totality of evidence and reasonable doubt assessed under r v villaroman, deferential appellate review applied, appeal dismissed, criminal and statutory offences, circumstantial evidence, alternative inferences, whether trial judge improperly rejected alternative explanations as speculative based solely on lack of evidence, distinction drawn from r v bremner and application of villaroman noted, alternative inferences from absence of evidence addressed in reasons, appeal dismissed, criminal and statutory offences, standard of proof, assessment of circumstantial evidence, whether trial judge erred by applying the ultimate standard of proof to individual facts and inferences, r v morin and r v hudson principles cited on cumulative force, individual items treated as building blocks, not final product, appeal dismissed, procedure, reasons, adequacy of reasons, whether trial judge’s rejection of alternative explanations was conclusory and inadequate, oral reasons reviewed holistically and in context of record and submissions, reasons found to clearly delineate why alternatives did not raise a doubt, appeal dismissed