The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing unreasonable delay under s 11(b) of the Charter, lack of consent, and insufficient identification evidence.
The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the Charter and consent grounds but found that the trial judge erred in relying on DNA evidence because the Crown failed to properly authenticate the hospital records and establish the chain of custody for the rape kit.
As the trial judge relied heavily on this inadmissible DNA evidence to establish identity, the conviction was quashed.
However, because there was other circumstantial identification evidence, a new trial was ordered rather than an acquittal.
