The appellant appealed his summary convictions for sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and voyeurism.
The convictions arose from an incident where the appellant invited a third party to participate in sexual activity with the blindfolded complainant without her knowledge, and surreptitiously recorded the encounter.
The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal in part.
The unlawful confinement conviction was quashed and an acquittal entered because the trial judge failed to consider whether the confinement was for a significant period.
The voyeurism conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered because the trial judge failed to consider whether the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The sexual assault conviction was upheld, as the trial judge made no errors in finding the complainant's consent was vitiated by fraud, and there was no ineffective assistance of counsel.
