The appellant appealed convictions for historical sexual offences involving two complainants and a custodial sentence of three years.
He argued that the trial judge reversed the burden of proof in assessing credibility, misapprehended evidence on key factual conflicts, improperly treated character and conduct evidence, and erred in entering a gross indecency conviction on one count.
The court held that the trial judge correctly applied the criminal standard of proof, adequately addressed the material evidentiary conflicts, and properly treated both the former-student evidence and the Crown’s reply evidence as being of little assistance.
The gross indecency conviction was upheld on the evidence, and the conviction appeal was dismissed.
Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed because the contingent basis for sentence reduction did not arise.
