The accused was convicted of three sexual offences against his stepdaughter.
The trial judge found the complainant credible and largely rejected the accused's evidence, but did not explicitly link each incident to a specific count or detail why the accused's denial failed to raise a reasonable doubt.
The Court of Appeal set aside the convictions, finding the reasons insufficient.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, holding that a trial judge's reasons must be read in context and are sufficient if they show why the judge reached the decision, without needing to detail every step of the reasoning process.
