Background
SLB, was convicted of sexual interference and assault under ss 151 and 266 of the Criminal Code, based on incidents alleged to have occurred between 1990 and 1992 when the complainant—his stepdaughter—was 3 to 5years old (para 1).
The complainant disclosed the incidents to police in 2020 at age 35. At trial, she testified that the appellant sexually touched her by licking and inserting his fingers in her vagina, then tasting his fingers and commenting on the taste. She also alleged physical abuse, stating that he disciplined her by striking her buttocks five times with a belt or wooden spoon(paras 4, 7).
The defence challenged her credibility by pointing out that some of the things she said were unbelievable – such as her statement that at 4years old she would be given money and sent by herself to the store to buy cigarettes for her parents. The Defence also pointed to inconsistencies in her statements. Her original police statement did not mention the finger-tasting or digital penetration, and she originally said she was struck three times, not five (paras 5–6, 8). There were also differences in what she said she told her mother and what her mother said happened.
SLB denied all allegations, admitting only to disciplining her with light spanking. However, he had difficulty recalling some dates and the sequence of residences from 30 years prior (paras 9–10).
The trial judge rejected the appellant’s evidence and accepted the complainant’s, characterizing her inconsistencies as minor and peripheral (paras 12–15), while saying that SLB’s inability to recall dates and details made his evidence unreliable.
Outcome
The Alberta Court of Appeal accepted our arguments and allowed the appeal, ordering a new trial. The Court found that the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge’s reasons were flawed in numerous ways (para19).
The Court emphasized that the trial judge made an illogical determination by accepting the complainant’s credibility overall while simultaneously expressing reasonable doubt about the most serious aspect of her allegations — penetration — without explaining why that doubt did not extend to the other parts of her testimony (paras 24–27). This had been a key argument made on appeal. The trial reasons did not reconcile that inconsistency, undermining the logic of the conviction.
Moreover, the Court found that the trial judge misapprehended significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, failing to properly assess their materiality or effect on credibility (paras40–43). In particular, the complainant’s evolving account of penetration and tasting was dismissed as minor when in fact those allegations were central to the charges.
As for the appellant, the Court held that his inability to recall peripheral details from 30 years prior — such as what year he went hunting or the sequence of where he lived — should not have been the basis for rejecting his evidence entirely (paras 44–50). The judge gave undue weight to memory lapses that were understandable given the time elapsed, contrary to established principles protecting the presumption of innocence and fair trial rights.
These errors, taken together, amounted to an unreasonable verdict, flawed reasoning, and a misapprehension of the evidence, warranting appellate intervention (paras 33–34, 43, 50).
Key Takeaways
- Illogical Reasoning Undermines Verdicts
A trial judge’s conclusions must be logically consistent. Accepting a complainant's credibility while simultaneously harboring reasonable doubt about a central allegation—without explanation—is legally insufficient (paras 25–27). - Inconsistencies Must Be Meaningfully Addressed
In sexual offence cases hinging on credibility, inconsistencies regarding core allegations (e.g., penetration or nature of contact) must be analyzed and not dismissed as peripheral without justification (paras 42–43) - Historical Memory Gaps Must Be Contextualized
An accused’s difficulty recalling peripheral details from decades past cannot alone justify rejecting their testimony. Courts must differentiate between sincere memory lapses and faulty recollections on critical facts (paras 44–50) - Sufficiency of Reasons is Crucial
Trial reasons must explain not only what decision was made but why it was made. A lack of clear reasoning frustrates appellate review and undermines fairness (paras 28–31 - W(D) Framework and the Burden of Proof
Judges must remember that even disbelieved defence evidence can still raise a reasonable doubt. Comparing “unbelievable” accounts from both sides is not proper under the W(D) framework (para 45).
Conclusion
The Court accepted our arguments: that the trial judge’s failure to provide coherent and sufficient reasons for conviction, impropertreatment of inconsistencies in key testimony, and an undue rejection ofdefence evidence based on minor memory issues. A new trial was ordered to remedy these errors and ensure a fair proceeding (para 53).