Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court acquitted Mr. Smith of sexual assault after finding material inconsistencies in both parties’ evidence and concluding the Crown had not proven non-consent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Applying the W.(D.) framework and considering the significant inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant’s evidence together with uncertainties in the evidence overall, the Crown did not prove the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore the accused must be acquitted.
Source excerpt
The court acquitted Doyle Angus of sexual assault after finding it could not prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Sweeney’s conviction appeal, holding the trial judge properly applied W.(D.) and committed no reviewable credibility error.
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge did not materially misapprehend the complainant’s evidence regarding consent to oral sex and the finding that the appellant fabricated aspects of his evidence was used legitimately to assess credibility under W.(D.), not as independent circumstantial evidence of guilt; moreover the non‑consensual attempted anal penetration alone sufficed to uphold the sexual assault conviction.
Source excerpt
The trial judge correctly applied the R. v W.(D.) framework, made defensible credibility and reliability findings, and did not materially misapprehend the evidence or apply uneven scrutiny; on the whole of the evidence the judge was satisfied of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Although the complainant's account met the elements in form, material gaps and lack of detail about how the touching occurred and inconsistencies regarding presence of the mother, combined with the accused’s credible testimony, leave a reasonable doubt on the whole of the evidence; therefore the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused is acquitted.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge did not err: he addressed the issues of collusion as framed by defence, expressly considered the complainants' prior discussion and its effect on credibility, used similar act evidence only alternatively, properly applied the W.(D.) test and explained why there was no reasonable doubt, and his credibility findings are entitled to deference.
Source excerpt
The trial judge's reasons were legally insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review because he failed to articulate why the accused's evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt and appeared to rely on the complainant's post‑incident conduct in a manner that effectively shifted the burden; appeal allowed, conviction set aside and matter remitted for retrial.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Knauff’s appeal from conviction for drug trafficking possession, holding the trial judge’s credibility assessment disclosed no reversible error.
Explore more
