A youth was charged with six counts arising from allegations of sexual abuse of a young child over a two-year period when the accused was approximately 15-16 years old and the complainant was 3-5 years old.
The Crown alleged three separate incidents of sexual abuse.
The accused denied all allegations.
The court applied the W.D. framework for assessing credibility and found the accused's evidence vague, internally inconsistent, and self-serving, while finding the complainant's evidence detailed, straightforward, and compelling despite her young age at the time of the incidents and at trial.
The court rejected arguments that the complainant's evidence was unreliable due to lack of detail, inconsistencies regarding anatomical terminology, or the absence of observable injuries.
The court found the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all charges.
