The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred by finding the complainant had no motive to fabricate and using this to assess her credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, clarifying the distinction between a "proven absence of motive to fabricate" and an "absence of evidence of motive to fabricate." The court held that while a proven absence of motive is a high bar, the absence of evidence of motive can be considered as one factor among many in assessing credibility, provided it is not given undue weight or used to reverse the burden of proof.

The trial judge's approach was found to be consistent with established legal principles.

Following a trial, Kenneth Ignacio was convicted of sexual assault involving non-consensual intercourse.

The court considered aggravating factors, including penetration and the absence of a condom, and mitigating factors, such as the offender being a youthful first offender with family support.

A significant aspect of the sentencing was the consideration of collateral immigration consequences, as Mr. Ignacio, a permanent resident, faced deportation due to any sentence of six months or more.

The court emphasized that while immigration consequences do not diminish moral blameworthiness, they must be accounted for under the principle of parity, requiring an adjustment to the sentencing range.

The Crown sought a sentence of two to three years, while the defence proposed 18 months.

The court imposed a sentence of 20 months imprisonment, along with a 20-year SOIRA order, a DNA sample order, and a no-contact order with the victim during custody.