Summary conviction appeal from convictions for sexual interference and voyeurism arising from incidents at a shopping mall involving a 15-year-old complainant and surreptitious recordings of teenage girls.
The appellant argued that the trial judge relied on improper assumptions about innocent behaviour, misapprehended the complainant's evidence about the nature of the touching, and reversed the burden of proof in her credibility analysis.
The court rejected all conviction grounds, holding that the impugned findings were open on the record, the complainant's evidence was assessed contextually, and the reasons disclosed substantive compliance with the W.D. framework.
The appeal from sentence succeeded only in part because the 20-year SOIRA order exceeded the statutory maximum for summary conviction offences; the order was reduced to 10 years but otherwise upheld.
