Law360 Canada ( January 12, 2026, 11:08 AM EST) -- Appeal by appellant from his conviction for rape and robbery committed in 1981. The complainant was attacked in an underground parking garage and raped under threat of a knife. She provided her pantyhose and later her dress to police and underwent a vaginal exam. Initial testing confirmed the presence of seminal fluid and spermatozoa, but DNA technology was unavailable at the time. The case lay dormant until 2018 when it was reopened and when advancements in DNA testing allowed cuttings from the complainant’s dress to be re-examined. Expert analysis revealed DNA from two individuals, one matching the complainant and the other matching the appellant. The appellant did not dispute the occurrence of the crimes but argued the evidence was insufficient to implicate him in those crimes. The trial judge was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the crimes. He challenged the trial judge’s findings on three grounds, being misapprehension of material evidence, improper admission of expert opinion beyond the expert’s qualifications, and misapplication of expert evidence. He argued the trial judge failed to consider discrepancies in the colour of the dress, the possibility of contamination, and the absence of contemporaneous notes. He also contended that the Crown’s DNA expert opined beyond her expertise by concluding the DNA source was semen. The Crown responded that the trial judge’s findings were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and owed deference. It argued the expert’s opinion was within her qualifications and that the trial judge properly considered all relevant evidence and alternative explanations before concluding guilt....