The defendant was charged with sexual assault and unlawfully in a dwelling.
The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.
The defendant pleaded not guilty and raised the defence of non-insane automatism in the form of parasomnia (sexomnia), claiming he was asleep during the alleged assault.
The trial judge rejected the automatism defence, finding the defendant had not established a proper evidentiary foundation on a balance of probabilities.
The judge found the defendant's account of events was inconsistent and unreliable, and that his actions demonstrated conscious, purposeful decision-making inconsistent with parasomnia.
The defendant was found guilty of sexual assault but acquitted of the unlawfully in a dwelling charge due to reasonable doubt regarding specific intent.
