A young person, P.P., was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving two cousins for historical incidents.
The trial involved testimony from the complainants, their mother, and the accused and his sister.
The court applied the principles of R. v. W.(D.) regarding reasonable doubt and assessed the credibility and reliability of all witnesses.
Significant inconsistencies in the complainants' evidence, including misidentification and factual contradictions, raised reliability concerns.
The Crown's similar fact application failed due to an inability to rebut the assertion of collusion.
The court found P.P. not guilty on all charges, concluding that the evidence did not satisfy the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
