Catherine Glaister

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility.

Specifically, the appellant contended the trial judge impermissibly relied on the complainant's religious beliefs to reject the defence theory that she had a motive to fabricate the allegations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that evidence of religious motives was admissible to explain the timing of disclosure and rebut the fabrication theory.

The court found no error in the trial judge's treatment of demeanour evidence or his assessment of investigative gaps.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge failed to provide sufficient guidance to the jury on assessing credibility in accordance with the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the inconsistencies raised by the appellant were not vital issues requiring a W.(D.) instruction.

The Court concluded that the trial judge's instructions adequately conveyed the relationship between credibility findings and the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.