The appellants were convicted of sexually and physically abusing their three children.
At trial, the judge admitted out-of-court statements made by one of the children, restricted the defence expert from testifying about the reliability of the children's memories, and prevented the defence from cross-examining the child therapist using transcripts of police interviews.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals, finding that the trial judge erred in these evidentiary rulings and in rendering inconsistent verdicts with inadequate reasons.
The Court entered an acquittal for D.W. due to insufficient evidence and ordered a new trial for D.R. and H.R.
