The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault by a judge sitting alone.
The complainant alleged that on October 16, 1992, after a night of drinking, she awoke to find the appellant having intercourse with her.
DNA evidence established that the appellant was the father of the complainant's child, confirming intercourse had occurred.
The central issue at trial was whether the complainant had consented.
The appellant argued the trial judge relied on a Crown misstatement of evidence regarding similar language used by both parties about the sexual act.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence from four years to three years, finding the trial judge had improperly treated the appellant's absence of remorse as an aggravating factor.