C. VandenBroek

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault, using an imitation firearm, uttering death threats, and forcible confinement.

The case hinged on the credibility of the complainant, Zoe Pessoa, and the accused, Alpha McLeod, who claimed the sexual activity was consensual and arranged via an escort website.

The court found Mr. McLeod's testimony to be inconsistent and contradictory, disbelieving his account.

Conversely, the complainant's evidence was found credible and reliable, supported by consistent testimony and corroborating facts.

Mr. McLeod was found guilty on counts of sexual assault, uttering death threats, and forcible confinement.

The Crown appealed a trial acquittal on a charge of sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to properly consider the complainant’s evidence, by finding no sexual assault occurred, and by providing insufficient reasons.

The appeal court examined whether the trial judge correctly applied the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D.) and whether the reasons for acquittal were legally sufficient.

The court held that, read as a whole, the trial judge’s analysis demonstrated reliance on the second branch of the W.(D.) framework and properly rejected the complainant’s evidence as unreliable.

The reasons sufficiently explained the basis for reasonable doubt and did not disclose a reversible error of law.

The acquittal was therefore upheld.