The appellant challenged convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference involving historic abuse of a child relative, and also appealed a six-year penitentiary sentence.
The court refused to admit fresh evidence consisting of a urologist's report because the proposed evidence merely bolstered unchallenged trial evidence and could not reasonably have affected the verdict.
Although the Crown's cross-examination about abortion risks was inflammatory and inappropriate, it did not render the trial unfair or cause a miscarriage of justice.
The court also held that the absence of a limiting instruction on one prior consistent statement was not fatal in light of the way prior statements were used at trial, and upheld the sentence as fit.
