K. Wilcox

The accused, a doctor, was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of uttering threats against a former patient and friend.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the complainant's evidence.

The defence argued the complainant had a motive to fabricate the allegations, pointing to evidence that she extorted the accused for money and threatened to report him if he stopped paying.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding the alleged assaults, threats, and cash payments.

Concluding that the complainant's evidence lacked credibility and reliability, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting breath certificate evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The trial judge had found a s. 10(b) breach because the arresting officer failed to facilitate the appellant's request to call his girlfriend to obtain a lawyer's name.

The summary conviction appeal court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's Grant analysis, concluding she properly assessed the seriousness of the breach and the officers' conduct.

The appeal was dismissed.