Alberta Court of Appeal upholds convictions in violent 2023 incident
CALGARY, Alta., — Alberta’s top court has dismissed the appeal of a Calgary man convicted of kidnapping and assaulting a woman with a chain, ruling that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence despite concerns about the complainant’s credibility.
Kyle Ivan Potts was found guilty in December 2024 of kidnapping, assault with a weapon, breach of curfew, breach of a release order, and theft of a motor vehicle. He appealed only the kidnapping and assault with a weapon convictions.
The charges stemmed from a violent encounter on October 4, 2023. According to court documents released Wednesday, the female victim was sitting in the driver’s seat of a Cadillac parked outside a friend’s garage when Potts and an associate, Mr. Labadie, arrived.
Labadie stood in the garage doorway, preventing two other individuals — Mr. Rose and Ms. Meilleur — from leaving. Shortly after, Potts and the victim drove away in the Cadillac.
The victim was later seen rolling into a ditch from the passenger side of the moving vehicle. The Cadillac was eventually discovered on a farmstead with blood on the front passenger seat, door handle, and running board. The victim suffered serious injuries.
Conflicting accounts
At trial, Potts and the victim presented vastly different versions of what occurred between the garage and the roadside where the victim was found injured.
The trial judge acknowledged the complainant’s evidence required “careful review,” describing some of it as “incredible.” However, he accepted her testimony only where corroborated by other witnesses.
Regarding the kidnapping charge, the trial judge found the victim was “forcibly removed from the Cadillac’s driver’s seat through the imposition of physical force and driven into the countryside against her will.” He determined she was “terrified for her safety” and felt her only option was to open the car door.
While the judge made no finding on whether the victim was pushed or jumped from the Cadillac, he concluded Potts abandoned her on the roadside with serious injuries.
On the assault with a weapon charge, the trial judge accepted the victim’s testimony that Potts struck her in the head with a chain while the Cadillac was still parked outside the garage.
Corroborating Witnesses
In upholding the convictions, the Court of Appeal pointed to several witnesses whose testimony supported the complainant’s account.
Rose testified to hearing “thumping and banging and a little bit of screaming” as Potts shouted at the victim to get into the passenger seat. Ms. Meilleur described Potts yelling at the victim to “move over” and the victim saying “no,” adding that she believed the victim “may have been a little bit afraid.”
Most significantly, Labadie — Potts’s associate who was present that day — gave a statement to police in November 2023 that was read into the trial record. In that statement, Labadie said he saw Potts open the Cadillac’s driver door and strike the victim in the head with a chain, providing a detailed physical description of the weapon.
At trial, Labadie recanted, testifying he had made “most of it up” because he was angry with Potts, intoxicated, and struggling with addiction issues. However, he also acknowledged he believed the statement was true when he gave it to police.
The trial judge accepted portions of Labadie’s evidence as corroborative and specifically rejected any suggestion of collusion between Labadie and the complainant regarding the use of a chain.
Appeal dismissed
On appeal, Potts argued the trial judge erred in finding the complainant’s evidence sufficiently credible and reliable. His lawyers claimed internal inconsistencies in her testimony, and questioned her credibility given her drug use and the head injury she sustained on the day of the incident. They also alleged the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny when comparing Potts’s evidence to the complainant’s.
“We are not persuaded that the appellant has identified an error of law, or any other reviewable error, in the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence,” said Justice Kevin Feehan, with Justices Bernette Ho and Kevin Feth agreeing.
The panel noted the trial judge was entitled to accept aspects of Labadie’s evidence as corroborative, particularly when considered alongside testimony from Rose.
“We conclude the appellant’s arguments amount to an invitation to this Court to reweigh the evidence, which is not the role of an appellate court,” the decision reads. “The trial judge’s findings were available to him based on the record and the appeal is dismissed.”
