Recent Cases

Case Review: Acquittal in Sexual Assault Allegation Involving Youth Complainant

Court: Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary

Charge: Sexual Assault

Outcome: Acquittal

Overview

I defended a young immigrant man who was charged with sexual assault arising from an allegation made by a 13-year-old complainant. The accused was renting a room in the complainant’s family home in Calgary at the time of the alleged offence. The case turned entirely on credibility, with no forensic or corroborative evidence.

The accused adamantly denied that any sexual contact occurred. The complainant maintained that it did. The matter proceeded to trial.

Defence Theory

From the outset, the defence position was that the alleged offence did not occur. The defence did not rely on the complainant being dishonest, malicious, or intentionally fabricating the allegation. Rather, the defence focused on whether the Crown could meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a case where the evidence consisted solely of two competing narratives.

Evidence at Trial

The accused testified in his own defence. He was not impeached on cross-examination and maintained a consistent denial of the allegation. However, as is often the case with witnesses testifying through interpreters and under the stress of a criminal trial, there were minor internal inconsistencies in his evidence.

The complainant testified and remained firm in her allegation. The Crown argued that her evidence should be accepted and that any inconsistencies in the accused’s testimony undermined his credibility.

Legal Strategy: R v W.D.

The defence strategy was expressly framed around the three-step analysis mandated by R v W.D., [1991] 1 SCR 742. While much criminal defence advocacy focuses on securing an acquittal under the first branch (belief in the accused’s evidence), I deliberately advanced submissions aimed at the second branch of the test.

I argued that:

• Even if the trial judge did not fully accept the accused’s evidence due to minor inconsistencies,
• His testimony nevertheless raised a reasonable doubt when considered in the context of:

- the absence of corroborative evidence,

- the circumstances in which the allegation arose,

- and the inherent difficulties of assessing credibility in a “he said / she said” case involving a young complainant, and

- that his evidence was entirely plausible due to the family dynamics and the tenuous living situation.

The defence emphasized that the W.D. analysis does not require an accused to present a flawless or perfectly consistent narrative. The legal standard is not credibility perfection, but whether the evidence as a whole leaves the court in a state of reasonable doubt.

Decision

The trial judge accepted the defence submissions and acquitted the accused on the second step of the R v W.D. test. The Court found that:

• Although the accused’s evidence was not entirely consistent in all respects,
• It was not shaken in cross-examination on the central issue of whether any sexual contact occurred, and
• When weighed against the Crown’s evidence, it left the Court with a reasonable doubt as to guilt.

Accordingly, the Crown failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key Takeaways

Key Takeaways

This case underscores the importance of a nuanced application of R v W.D. and demonstrates that an acquittal does not require the court to fully believe the accused. Where an accused testifies and maintains a clear denial on the core allegation, even imperfect evidence may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.

The case also highlights the need for careful, respectful advocacy in sensitive matters involving youth complainants, while ensuring that the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof remain central to the Court’s analysis.

If you have been charged with a criminal offence, contact our lawyers today.