The Crown appealed a Manitoba Court of Appeal decision ordering a new trial after the accused was convicted at trial of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching.
The Court of Appeal majority found the trial judge had misapprehended the evidence, but the dissenting judge held that deference was owed to the trial judge's credibility assessments.
The Supreme Court agreed with the dissent, finding the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence, draw unavailable inferences, or err in his credibility findings.
The convictions were restored.
