The accused was convicted of four offences relating to the sexual abuse of a child and uttering a threat.
The trial judge re-opened the trial to hear fresh alibi evidence but ultimately confirmed the convictions.
The Court of Appeal set aside the convictions on the basis that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient to explain how he resolved contradictions in the complainant's evidence.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, finding that the trial judge's reasons, read as a whole, were functionally sufficient and explained the basis for the verdict.