The accused appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a minor.
The appeal alleged that the verdict was unreasonable, that the trial judge misapprehended evidence relating to the absence of a used condom or wrapper, failed to properly scrutinize the complainant’s credibility, reversed the burden of proof, failed to address the defence theory, and provided inadequate reasons.
Applying the principles from R. v. R.E.M., the appeal court held that the trial judge’s reasons were sufficient and demonstrated proper consideration of credibility and reasonable doubt.
The trial judge reasonably rejected the accused’s testimony, accepted the complainant’s evidence, and relied in part on corroborative forensic evidence.
No legal error or miscarriage of justice was established.
