Appeal from conviction on multiple charges including assault causing bodily harm. Argument on appeal that the trial judge shifted the burden of proof by treating inconsistencies in complainant’s testimony more generously than inconsistencies in the appellant’s version of events.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Appellant required to “point to something in the reasons of the trial judge or perhaps elsewhere on the record that made it clear that the trial judge had applied different standards in assessing the evidence of the appellant and the complainant”: JH, 2005 CanLII 253 (Ont CA), MJB, 2015 ABCA 146. “The record … reveals a considered and reasoned acceptance of the complainant’s evidence. The trial judge acknowledged inconsistencies he could not resolve.” Trial judge gave clear reasons for disbelieving appellant’s evidence, and went beyond merely rejecting his version to consider whether Crown had proven offence beyond a reasonable doubt. No W(D) error.

S. Smith – Defence Counsel