The appellant was acquitted at trial of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault against his granddaughter, who was between 7 and 10 years old at the time of the alleged offences.
The Crown appealed on the basis that the trial judge engaged in impermissible stereotypical reasoning in assessing the complainant's credibility, specifically by inferring that because the complainant had a 'strong and normal' relationship with the accused, the offences could not have occurred.
The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the majority of the Court of Appeal that this inference was rooted in stereotypical reasoning rather than the totality of the evidence, and constituted an error of law that had a material effect on the verdict.
The appeal was dismissed and a new trial ordered.
