Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal law - Sexual assault - Evidence - Credibility - Whether the verdict of the trial judge was unreasonable in light of the evidence adduced at trial and the test enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742.

The Appellant was charged with two counts of sexual assault. The complainant was a young girl between the ages of six and eight years of age during the time period covered in the indictment. The Appellant was an occasional sitter for the complainant. The Appellant denied touching the complainant in any inappropriate way.

At trial, the trial judge found the complainant to be a good witness, did not exaggerate her description, provided a reasonable amount of detail and was unshaken on cross-examination. The trial judge did not believe the Appellant's testimony nor did it raise a reasonable doubt in her mind. The trial judge convicted the Appellant on the two counts of sexual assault. On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Twaddle J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and directed the entry of acquittals on the basis of the trial judge's incorrect approach to the issue of credibility and her acceptance of the Appellant's good recollection of events as supportive of a finding that the Appellant's evidence was incredible.