The appellant, a store manager, was convicted of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old employee.
He appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were deficient and failed to explain why his evidence was rejected and the complainant's evidence was accepted.
The Summary Conviction Appeal Court agreed, finding that the trial judge's reasons were largely conclusory, misapprehended important defence evidence, and failed to address significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.
