The appellant, William Simpson, appealed his convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault.
He argued that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny, misapplied the guidance in R. v. W.(D.), and erred by relying on speculation and impermissible stereotypes.
The appellant also sought to admit fresh evidence from a clinical psychiatrist regarding his mental acuity at the time of trial.
The court dismissed the fresh evidence application, finding it lacked cogency, due diligence, and credibility.
On the merits of the appeal, the court found no error in the trial judge's W.(D.) analysis, no s.276 or Seaboyer error, and no erroneous reliance on common-sense assumptions.
The court affirmed that the trial judge's credibility assessment was rooted in the evidence and entitled to deference.
The appeal was dismissed.
