The accused was tried on three sexual offence counts and one count of threatening death arising from allegations by a family member concerning events said to have occurred when the complainant was 12 and 13 years old, and a later threat allegation.
Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court held that the Crown's case turned on the complainant's evidence, but significant reliability and credibility concerns arose from contradictory evidence about the accused's residence during the relevant period, doubts about the authenticity of photographs, and persuasive defence evidence that the complainant had attended at the accused's workplace and left a note before the April 2, 2012 confrontation.
The court rejected speculative Crown submissions that defence witnesses had concocted their evidence and emphasized the Crown's obligation to act fairly and on a proper evidentiary foundation.
The Crown failed to prove the essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquittals were entered on all counts.
