The appellant appealed a sexual assault conviction from the Ontario Court of Justice, arguing the trial judge misapprehended key evidence and applied a different level of scrutiny to defence evidence than to the complainant’s testimony.
The alleged errors concerned the timing of graffiti written by the complainant in the accused’s apartment and inconsistencies in the complainant’s account of when she arrived in the city and how long she remained at the residence.
The appeal court held that the trial judge was aware of the inconsistencies and reasonably resolved them within the credibility assessment.
It further held that the reasons did not demonstrate that different standards of scrutiny were applied to the defence witnesses and the complainant.
The conviction was therefore supported by the evidence and disclosed no miscarriage of justice.
