On a criminal appeal from convictions for sexual assault, assault, and threatening death, the appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility findings in a consent case.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge improperly took judicial notice of a physiological proposition about how a healthy young man's penis would function during intercourse, despite the absence of expert evidence and without notice to the parties.
The court also found a material misapprehension of a witness's evidence concerning what she knew of the parties' prior relationship, which materially supported the rejection of the defence evidence.
Because both errors went to central factual issues, the convictions were quashed and a new trial was ordered.
