The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault following an encounter in a parked car after meeting the complainant at an after-hours club.

The sole issue at trial was whether the sexual activity was consensual.

The trial judge evaluated the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the accused, finding inconsistencies and difficulties in both of their testimonies.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the totality of the evidence left a reasonable doubt as to whether the sexual contact was consensual, resulting in an acquittal.

The accused, R.M., was charged with sexual assault and touching a person under 16 for a sexual purpose, involving his adoptive daughter, H.G. The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the accused.

The court found the police interview of the child complainant to be highly suggestive and leading, diminishing the weight of her statement.

The accused's testimony was found credible and consistent with the complainant's limited recollection regarding bedtime routines.

The Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the accused's acquittal on both counts.

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.

The appellant, Brent William Diehl, appealed his conviction for sexual assault with a weapon, arguing that the trial judge relied on myths and stereotypes in assessing credibility and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's analysis, which correctly applied the principles of credibility assessment and reasonable doubt, and did not engage in stereotypical reasoning or uneven scrutiny.

The trial judge's assessment of the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable, and the appellant's account as illogical, was upheld.

The appellant, Joseph Donnelly, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, which stemmed from two incidents: non-consensual unprotected intercourse and non-consensual penetration with a dildo.

This was his second trial after the first conviction was overturned.

The appeal raised four grounds: errors in handling late forensic disclosure, dismissal of a s. 11(b) Charter application for delay, reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge, and errors in evidence assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding no error in the trial judge's rulings on disclosure, delay (calculating net delay at 11 months, 22 days, well within Jordan limits), or judicial impartiality.

The court also upheld the trial judge's credibility assessments and use of common sense, clarifying that a comment about sexual preferences was rooted in the complainant's evidence, not a stereotype.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on sexual assault charges.

The trial judge had found both the complainant and the respondent credible but had a reasonable doubt, partly due to the complainant's inability to explain her entry into an abandoned trailer and her communication with her father after the alleged assault.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by applying stereotypical views about sexual assault victims' behavior, specifically by inferring consent from the complainant's entry into the trailer and by judging her credibility based on her communication with her father.

The court also found an error in the exclusion of the complainant's prior consistent statement and demeanour evidence to her friend.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered, as these errors had a material bearing on the acquittal.