The appellant, H.A., appealed his conviction for sexual interference and his sentence.
The trial judge had found that the appellant touched the complainant in her vaginal area on multiple occasions when she was nine years old.
The appellant claimed the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the use of a blanket and the complainant's clothing, and erred by failing to provide a proper analysis under the third prong of *R. v. W.D.* The Court of Appeal found no misapprehension of evidence, noting the trial judge's reasons were clear and comprehensive.
The court also found no error in the application of the burden of proof.
No submissions were advanced on the sentence appeal.
Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.
