Following a judge-alone trial on a charge of sexual assault, the court addressed a credibility contest in which both parties agreed that initial sexual touching and oral sex were consensual, but disagreed about whether intercourse was consensual.
Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence because his admitted blackout-level intoxication undermined both reliability and credibility, and because his detailed recollection was inconsistent with his level of impairment.
The court accepted the complainant's evidence as plausible, consistent, and supported by post-incident demeanour evidence.
The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused forcibly penetrated the complainant after she clearly and repeatedly refused consent.
