The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault entered in the Ontario Court of Justice.
The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in assessing credibility by allegedly giving the complainant a “credibility handicap” and by applying different credibility standards to the complainant and the accused.
The court reviewed the applicable appellate standard under s. 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code and the deference owed to trial-level credibility findings.
The court concluded that the trial judge properly applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework and conducted a detailed analysis of both the accused’s and the complainant’s evidence.
Finding no error in principle and no unreasonable verdict, the appeal was dismissed.
