Appeal from conviction for touching a minor for a sexual purpose. Appellant testified at trial and denied the offence; W(D) case. Argument on appeal that the trial judge applied a higher level of scrutiny to the appellant’s testimony than the complainant’s.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Trial judges’ credibility assessments are given significant deference, and conclusions in this case did not display palpable and overriding error. “The appellant’s ‘uneven scrutiny’ argument also fails because he has not pointed to something that makes it clear that the trial judge actually applied different standards of scrutiny in assessing the evidence of the appellant and complainant: R v Radcliffe, 2017 ONCA 176”. Insufficient merely to show that the trial judge did not “expressly articulate” relevant legal principles, made omissions in commenting on credibility, or that a different judge could have come to a different credibility determination.

T. Roulston – Defence Counsel