The appellant challenged jury convictions for multiple sexual offences against two child complainants and appealed an eight-year penitentiary sentence.
The court rejected the unreasonable verdict argument, holding that despite material inconsistencies, the core allegations remained intact and the jury was properly instructed on credibility concerns.
The court also held that medical opinion evidence concerning vaginal penetration was relevant to one complainant but irrelevant to counts involving the other complainant; however, the evidentiary error and absence of a limiting instruction caused no substantial wrong and were cured under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.
On sentence, the court found the trial judge had set the range too high by over-relying on a more aggravated comparator case and reduced the custodial sentence to six and a half years, in addition to pre-sentence custody.
