Law360 Canada ( April 29, 2026, 9:39 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Morris from his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, and from the resulting sentence. The complainant, N.B., was between 12 and 13 when the alleged incidents occurred, and Morris was a friend of N.B.’s stepfather. The Crown’s case consisted of N.B.’s trial testimony and his videotaped police interview, in which he described five incidents. N.B. disclosed the abuse to his great‑aunt shortly before the police report. The Crown called the investigating officer, N.B.’s stepsister, stepfather and great‑aunt. The appellant did not testify. Defence cross‑examination challenged N.B.’s credibility and reliability, pointing to inconsistencies and improbabilities, and explored whether N.B.’s stepfather may have wanted the appellant out of the picture, which N.B. denied. The defence did not ultimately argue motive to fabricate. In closing, Crown counsel anticipated a motive‑to‑fabricate argument, suggested N.B.’s demeanour was that of a victim and posited that either the appellant was attracted to prepubescent boys or not. Defence counsel responded by emphasizing inconsistencies, denying any fabrication theory and telling the jury they need not answer “why would I make this up?” After closings, the judge charged the jury, stating that neither motive to commit the offences nor motive to fabricate was essential and that the jury need not answer “why would N.B. lie.” On appeal, the appellant argued that the motive instructions were flawed and unbalanced, that the judge improperly invited consideration of motive to commit the offences and that the sentence was tainted because the judge allegedly treated lack of insight as an aggravating factor....