The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for sexual assault, assault, choking, and forcible confinement.
He argued the trial judge relied on stereotypical notions of common sense and conducted an unbalanced credibility analysis.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's credibility assessment or reliance on common sense, noting the trial judge meticulously reviewed the evidence, including security video and independent witness testimony.
The appeal from conviction was dismissed, and the sentence of 18 months minus a day was upheld as fit.
