The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, two counts of invitation to sexual touching, and unlawful confinement arising from an incident involving a young complainant in an apartment building.
The Crown relied primarily on eyewitness identification by the complainant, including a photographic lineup conducted more than a year after the incident.
The court found significant weaknesses in the identification evidence, including structural bias in the lineup where the accused was the only person with the distinctive feature described by the witness, and post‑lineup communications by the investigating officer that reinforced the witness’s identification.
These actions tainted the reliability of the identification evidence and undermined the probative value of the complainant’s subsequent expressions of certainty.
Considering the frailties of eyewitness identification, the lack of corroborating evidence, and inconsistent circumstantial evidence, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
