The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a complainant who was under sixteen years old at the time of the alleged incidents.
The case turned primarily on credibility, with only the complainant and the accused testifying.
The court rejected the accused’s testimony as unreliable but nonetheless found that the Crown had not proven the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
Concerns included the absence of corroborative evidence, inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements on material points, and aspects of the account that appeared implausible.
Applying the criminal standard of proof and credibility principles including those discussed in R. v. W.(R.), the court concluded that a reasonable doubt remained.
