The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt on two sexual assault counts arising from allegations that, during otherwise consensual sexual activity, he struck the complainant without consent.
He argued that the trial judge impermissibly bolstered credibility by referring to the absence of embellishment, misstated and misapplied the W.(D.) framework, and admitted prior-incident evidence amounting to presumptively inadmissible bad character evidence.
The appeal court held that, although parts of the reasons were imperfect and included troublesome language, the reasons read as a whole showed the trial judge understood and applied the proper burden of proof, made credibility findings open on the record, and did not engage in propensity reasoning.
The appeal was dismissed.
