The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences against his young child.
At trial, the Crown called an expert in child sexual abuse to testify about the child's out-of-court statements.
The expert's testimony went beyond permissible bounds by indicating his belief in the veracity of the child's foster parents and the child's disclosures, effectively usurping the jury's role in assessing credibility.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in admitting this testimony without requiring the use of hypothetical questions to properly confine the expert's opinion.
The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.
