Neil F. Weinstein

The accused was charged with multiple sexual offences, including sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and indecent exposure, relating to four complainants: his former partner, her daughter, her friend, and the friend's daughter.

The court carefully assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainants' testimony, noting numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, and memory issues, particularly regarding the specific details and timelines of the alleged incidents.

Finding that the evidence of the complainants was fraught with frailties that raised a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the accused on all charges.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, sexual touching, and committing an indecent act, arguing that the trial judge misapplied the framework from R. v. W.(D.) and failed to properly consider whether the accused’s evidence, even if disbelieved, could raise a reasonable doubt.

The appellant contended that the trial judge’s language suggested the burden shifted to the accused to raise a defence.

The appellate court reviewed the reasons as a whole and concluded that the trial judge understood and correctly applied the W.(D.) framework and the reasonable doubt standard.

Any problematic wording was characterized as a language issue rather than a legal error.

Deference was owed to the trial judge’s credibility findings on a summary conviction appeal.