The accused was convicted of sexual assault following a jury trial where credibility was the central issue.
The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction, finding the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury on the application of reasonable doubt to credibility as required by R. v. W. (D.).
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the jury charge, when read as a whole, did not leave the jury with any misapprehension as to the correct burden and standard of proof.
