The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and attempting to obstruct justice arising from an alleged non-consensual sexual encounter and an interrupted 911 call.
The court rejected the accused’s evidence as contradictory, illogical, and implausible, but held that disbelief of the accused did not relieve the Crown of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under the W.(D.) framework.
Although the court accepted much of the complainant’s evidence and found it likely that a sexual assault occurred, it identified material inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and improbabilities going to the core events inside the apartment.
Those concerns left the court with a reasonable doubt on both counts, resulting in acquittals.
