In a historical sexual assault prosecution, the court applied the W.(D.) framework to competing testimony from the complainant and the defendant.
The complainant's account was plausible and personally convincing, but material additions and inconsistencies across her prior statements and trial evidence raised reliability concerns.
The defendant's evidence consisted largely of firm denials and an unpersuasive speculative motive theory, but it could not be rejected as self-serving deception.
The court was left unsure what, if anything, occurred and held that the Crown had not proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
