The appellant, G.R., appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting a nine-year-old victim and his 5.5-year sentence.

The conviction appeal argued that new evidence from the complainant during re-examination rendered the trial unfair.

The Court of Appeal found that most of the "new" evidence was already known from the preliminary inquiry, trial counsel did not seek an adjournment or re-open cross-examination, the trial judge did not rely on the new detail to support the Crown's case, and the evidence concerned the least serious of the allegations.

The sentence appeal argued the sentence was at the high end of the range.

The court found no error in law or principle by the trial judge and upheld the sentence, noting the appellant's breach of trust.

Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.