The appellant, H.K., appealed convictions for various sexual assault offences, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing conflicting evidence on consent and that the global sentence of three years was excessive.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal at the outset.
Regarding the conviction appeal, the appellant contended the trial judge's credibility assessment was piecemeal and failed to resolve inconsistencies.
The Court, applying principles from R. v. G.F., affirmed the heightened deference owed to trial judges' credibility findings.
It found that the trial judge conducted a thorough and nuanced analysis, explaining which parts of the complainant's evidence were accepted or found unreliable, and considering corroborating evidence.
The Court concluded there was no error in the trial judge's analysis and dismissed the appeal from convictions.
