The accused appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a child complainant and a nine‑year custodial sentence.
He argued that the trial judge erred in refusing an application under the Criminal Code for production of the complainant’s Children’s Aid Society and counselling records, asserting the records were needed to challenge credibility due to inconsistencies between statements.
The Court of Appeal held that the accused failed to establish the statutory threshold of “likely relevance,” emphasizing that speculative assertions or hopes of finding prior inconsistent statements do not justify production of confidential therapeutic records.
The court also rejected the argument that the sentencing judge made factual findings inconsistent with the jury’s acquittals on related charges.
The sentence was upheld as fit given the breach of trust, the complainant’s young age, and the prolonged and intrusive nature of the offences.
