The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.
The trial judge had relied on evidence of an incident at a Christmas party seven years prior to the alleged assault to infer that the appellant had a sexual inclination toward the complainant.
The Court of Appeal held that this inference was unreasonable and central to the conviction, requiring the verdict to be quashed.
However, the Court rejected the argument that the verdict itself was unreasonable under s. 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, as a reasonable trier of fact could have accepted the complainant's evidence.
A new trial was ordered.
