The appellant appealed as of right from a Quebec Court of Appeal decision upholding his convictions for sexual assault and breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence.
Both the Court of Appeal majority and the SCC majority agreed the trial judge erred in characterizing a prior event as similar fact evidence.
The SCC majority, adopting the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, held the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code applied and dismissed the appeal.
The dissent disagreed, finding that because credibility of both the accused and complainant was central, the Crown's evidence could not be considered overwhelming, making the curative proviso inapplicable.
The appeal was dismissed, with Brown and Rowe JJ. dissenting.
