Andrea E. E. Tuck-Jackson

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault following an incident with his former fiancée.

At trial, the complainant's family doctor testified for the defence that she examined the complainant shortly after the incident and did not observe any injuries to her breasts, contradicting the complainant's testimony.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, concluding the doctor must have missed the injury.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended the complainant's testimony regarding the medical examination and failed to properly weigh it against the doctor's evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed conviction and sentence, arguing error in the admission and use of a letter, improper reliance on sexual activity evidence as bad character evidence, and unfair cross-examination.

The court held that although the Crown had no basis to tender the letter in its case in chief, no prejudice resulted because the appellant would inevitably have testified and the letter could then have been used in cross-examination.

The court further found the trial judge used the impugned evidence only in assessing credibility and not for propensity reasoning.

The appeal was dismissed.