The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault with a weapon, theft under $5,000, and breach of probation.
He appealed his convictions and sentence, arguing the trial judge misunderstood the evidence, improperly took judicial notice regarding the complainant's underwear, and misapplied the rule in Browne v. Dunn.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not take judicial notice but rather rejected the appellant's speculative suggestion, and properly applied Browne v. Dunn by noting the defence failed to cross-examine the complainant on their theory.
