The appellant, a family doctor, appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting a patient during an after-hours examination.
He argued the trial judge erred in relying on the complainant's post-event demeanour, failing to properly assess her credibility regarding her suspicions of his motives, misapprehending a witness's evidence, and misapplying the W.(D.) framework for credibility.
The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the law, reasonably assessed the evidence, and made no reversible errors in concluding the Crown's evidence overwhelmed the defence's evidence.