The accused was acquitted at trial of sexual assault.
The Crown appealed, arguing the trial judge made several errors in his charge to the jury, including mischaracterizing evidence, failing to properly instruct on prior inconsistent statements, and improperly leaving the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent to the jury.
The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the cumulative effect of the trial judge's errors was significant and that there was no evidentiary foundation to lend an air of reality to the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.
