The accused was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm and choking following a sexual encounter with the complainant.
The complainant alleged the accused violently grabbed, bit, and choked her without consent, while the accused maintained the encounter was consensual 'rough sex' and denied biting or choking her.
The court admitted expert evidence from a forensic pathologist who testified the complainant's injuries were inconsistent with bite marks.
Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and corroboration of the accused's account by the expert.
