Karla Wentzel

The accused was tried on sexual assault and sexual touching counts involving two 15-year-old complainants arising from separate incidents at the same apartment during the same summer.

The court admitted the evidence of each complainant as similar fact evidence on the other counts, applying the Handy framework and finding substantial similarities, strong probative value, and no air of reality to allegations of collusion.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused’s testimony as incredible and found both complainants credible, internally consistent, and corroborated by surrounding evidence, including expert medical evidence respecting healed genital injury to one complainant.

Convictions were entered on all remaining counts.

The appellant appealed his conviction on two charges of sexual assault against two young family members.

The appellant argued the trial judge did not properly deal with inconsistencies in the complainants' testimony and erred in relying on the evidence of a nurse practitioner regarding the causes of one complainant's sexually transmitted infection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed credibility and that there was abundant evidence supporting the conviction.