The appellant appealed both his conviction and sentence from the Ontario Court of Justice.
On the conviction appeal, the appellant raised two grounds: that the trial judge erred in her similar fact ruling regarding collusion between complainants, and that the trial judge unevenly scrutinized the evidence of the complainants versus the appellant's evidence.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly considered the possibility of innocent collusion, made findings on the extent of discussions between complainants that were supported by the record, and properly assessed credibility.
The appellant's defence of shady business dealings was found to lack credibility and was contradicted by corporate documents.
Both the conviction appeal and sentence appeal were dismissed.
