The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a person with a disability.
The complainant, who had a mild mental disability, gave inconsistent testimony, including conflicting statements about inventing the allegations.
The trial judge convicted the appellant, relying on the complainant's prior consistent statements to corroborate her testimony, without explaining how he resolved the inconsistencies.
The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons explaining how he resolved the significant credibility issues and erred in using prior consistent statements to corroborate the complainant's testimony.
