Craig Savage

The appellant was convicted at trial of sexual assault and sexual interference.

He appealed on the basis that the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons with respect to the assessment of witness credibility.

The majority of the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's reasons were sufficiently articulate in explaining how credibility issues were resolved, that the trial judge applied the proper framework to assess credibility, and that the trial judge did not misapprehend evidence.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the dissenting Court of Appeal judge.

The Crown appealed a Manitoba Court of Appeal decision ordering a new trial after the accused was convicted at trial of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching.

The Court of Appeal majority found the trial judge had misapprehended the evidence, but the dissenting judge held that deference was owed to the trial judge's credibility assessments.

The Supreme Court agreed with the dissent, finding the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence, draw unavailable inferences, or err in his credibility findings.

The convictions were restored.