The appellant, a high school teacher, was convicted of sexual interference and sexual assault against a 14-year-old student.
He appealed his convictions, arguing primarily that the trial judge erred by permitting the Crown to call a vice-principal as a reply witness to rebut the appellant's testimony regarding a conversation between them.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the reply evidence did not breach the rule against case-splitting because the Crown could not have reasonably anticipated the appellant's testimony.
The court also dismissed arguments regarding inadmissible hearsay and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.
