The appellant challenged a conviction for sexual assault causing bodily harm, arguing misapprehension of evidence, failure to consider the totality of evidence, and an unreasonable verdict.
Applying the appellate standard of review under s. 686(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Criminal Code, the Court substantially agreed with the intermediate appellate reasons on miscarriage-of-justice issues.
The Court also rejected the alleged Beaudry error, finding no illogical or irrational reasoning process by the trial judge.
The verdict was held not unreasonable, and the conviction was upheld.
