Two appeals arising from sexual assault convictions that were overturned by the British Columbia Court of Appeal on the basis of a proposed 'rule against ungrounded common-sense assumptions'.
The majority declined to recognize this rule as giving rise to an error of law, holding that credibility and reliability assessments — including reliance on common-sense assumptions — are reviewable only for palpable and overriding error absent a recognized error of law such as reliance on myths and stereotypes about complainants.
Applying the correct standard of palpable and overriding error, the majority found no reviewable errors in either trial judge's credibility findings and restored both convictions.
Rowe J. concurred in the result but proposed a three-question framework for appellate review of generalized expectations, holding that reliance on an unreasonable generalized expectation constitutes an error of law reviewable on correctness.
