The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, as well as his designation as a dangerous offender.
He argued the trial judge erred by admitting out-of-court statements from a child witness, misdirecting the jury on unanimity, and refusing a mistrial.
The Court of Appeal found the child's statements were improperly admitted as the Crown failed to establish necessity, leading to the quashing of the unlawful confinement convictions.
However, the sexual assault conviction was upheld by applying the curative proviso.
The court dismissed the appeal regarding jury unanimity and the dangerous offender designation, affirming the indeterminate sentence.
