Law360 Canada ( August 9, 2021, 9:12 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the accused from conviction of sexually assaulting his niece between 1985-1988, when she was between 7 and 10. The complainant testified about three incidents in which the appellant sexually touched her. The appellant allegedly admitted the offences to the complainant and her family. The appellant testified that when he admitted to touching the complainant, he believed she was referring to her sitting on his midsection and bouncing her bum on his body. As to his later admissions to other family members, he testified to his submissive personality and desire to avoid conflict, which was why he never explained at the time that he thought what was being discussed was the complainant’s bouncing. The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to charge the jury about the permissible uses of the complainant’s prior consistent statement of sexual abuse, permitting the Crown to tender the evidence of the complainant’s husband relating to his telephone calls to the appellant in which the appellant allegedly made an implicit admission of having sexually assaulted the complainant, and excluding the defence’s proposed expert evidence about the science of false memories....