The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, forcible confinement, and assault arising from an incident between two teenagers who had met online.
The trial judge accepted the complainant’s testimony as credible and rejected the accused’s evidence.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge improperly treated the complainant as a child witness, applied a different level of scrutiny due to the parties’ age difference, and incorrectly found collusion between the accused and his parents.
The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, holding that the trial judge merely referenced the complainant’s age at the time of the events and conducted a balanced credibility assessment.
Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.
