Law360 Canada ( June 4, 2026, 9:33 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant from his convictions for sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, and indecent exposure to a person under 16 years of age. The complainant alleged three incidents when she was seven, which included sexual touching while sleeping in the appellant’s bed, sexual touching in the appellant’s locked bedroom while watching television, and the appellant exposing himself and telling her to touch him. The appellant denied the allegations. In addition to the appellant, eight family members testified for the defence, providing evidence that the complainant never slept over, was not alone with the appellant in his bedroom, and that the appellant lacked the technological ability to stream content to his television. The Crown argued that the defence witnesses were biased and had colluded. The judge instructed the jury on collusion, referring generally to witnesses, and excepted only the appellant’s son. The appellant appealed, arguing the judge erred in the collusion instruction by failing to make clear that it did not apply to him, and by failing to instruct the jury that rejection of the family members’ evidence on the basis of collusion could not be used to assess his credibility or infer guilt. He also alleged failure to relate reasonable doubt to credibility of other defence evidence. The Crown argued that no improper collusion theory was advanced against the appellant and that the instructions were adequate when read as a whole....