The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault involving two complainants.
He argued the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding the use of similar fact evidence across counts, the assessment of similarities and differences in the evidence, the possibility of collusion, and the assessment of the complainants' credibility.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no prejudice in the omission of an express 'bad personhood' instruction and concluding the trial judge's instructions adequately equipped the jury to perform their adjudicative function.