The accused was convicted at trial of sexual assault and indecent assault based primarily on the testimony of the complainant.
The Court of Appeal set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge's reasons did not adequately explain why the evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, holding that a court of appeal cannot set aside a verdict that is reasonably supported by the evidence merely because the trial judge failed to indicate expressly that all relevant considerations were taken into account.
The Court also upheld the trial judge's admission of expert psychiatric evidence regarding the complainant's behaviour and history of abuse.
