The appellant was convicted of multiple sexual offences and possessing child pornography, receiving a 10-year prison sentence.
He appealed his conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial judge failed to adequately address inconsistencies in a complainant's evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant did not meet the factual threshold for ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial judge properly characterized the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence as "peripheral," distinguishing the case from precedents where inconsistencies were deemed "profound."
