Adam Godlewski

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving historical allegations of sexual assault and incest against a child family member, the prosecution relied solely on the complainant's testimony.

The court reviewed the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the approach to credibility where an adult testifies about childhood events, and the principle that corroboration is not legally required.

The court found the complainant's evidence generic, lacking in detail and temporal specificity, and further found significant reliability and credibility concerns arising from her memory gaps, evasiveness, and contradiction regarding alleged phone evidence.

Those concerns left the court unable to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant, convicted of sexual assault with a weapon, brought a motion for state-funded counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code after being denied Legal Aid.

The applicant argued the trial judge erred by relying on myths and stereotypes and misapplying the W.(D.) principles in assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the proposed grounds of appeal lacked sufficient merit and the applicant was capable of advancing the arguments without appointed counsel.