The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, his dangerous offender designation, and his indeterminate sentence.
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the appellant was reckless and failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the underage complainant's age.
The Court also upheld the trial judge's discretionary decision under the Kienapple principle to enter a conviction for sexual assault rather than sexual interference.
However, the Court admitted fresh evidence demonstrating that the Crown's psychiatric expert employed a careless practice in preparing dangerous offender reports in another case.
Because the trial judge relied heavily on this expert's apparent thoroughness to impose an indeterminate sentence, the Court allowed the sentence appeal in part and ordered a new penalty hearing with a fresh psychiatric assessment.
