The accused, a dermatologist, was charged with sexual assault in relation to five patients who alleged he intentionally touched them in a sexual manner during medical examinations.
The Crown brought a similar fact application to admit the evidence of each complainant across all counts, which the court allowed.
However, applying the W.(D.) framework and assessing the circumstantial evidence, the court found the complainants' evidence unreliable due to inconsistencies and the possibility of tainting from media reports.
The court concluded there was a reasonable possibility that the physical contact was inadvertent and incidental to the close-proximity medical examinations.
The accused was found not guilty.
