The accused was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, uttering a death threat, and forcible confinement arising from an attack on a child in a public park in 1997.
The Crown relied heavily on DNA evidence obtained from semen found on the complainant’s clothing, which was later matched to the accused after his DNA was entered into the national databank following a later conviction.
The defence argued that the DNA could have been transferred indirectly and invoked the framework in R. v. W.(D.), asserting reasonable doubt.
The court rejected the accused’s account that his semen was deposited during consensual sex in a different area of the park and found the theory implausible and unsupported by evidence.
The judge concluded that the DNA continuity and analysis were reliable and that speculative alternative explanations could not raise a reasonable doubt.
