The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.
The incident occurred after the appellant, the complainant, and her partner returned to a residence after drinking.
The trial judge rejected the appellant's testimony as illogical and accepted the complainant's evidence.
On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the W.(D.) principles, assessing credibility, and refusing an adjournment for a Seaboyer application.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and there were no errors of law.
