Law360 Canada ( February 10, 2026, 9:39 AM EST) -- Appeal by Stuart from sexual assault convictions. The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and criminal harassment. The charge for sexual assault arose from an incident which, after having stayed overnight at the appellant’s home, the complainant awoke to find the appellant pulling her underwear off. While she hesitated, the appellant got on top of her, put his penis into her vagina, and began thrusting. Despite her efforts to push him off, he continued. The criminal harassment charge was based on the appellant’s communications with the complainant in the days following the sexual assault. With respect to the sexual assault conviction, during cross-examination, defence counsel put it to the complainant that she fabricated the allegation of sexual assault because she wanted to reconcile with her ex-partner. Following an objection by the Crown, the trial judge concluded that the question implied a past sexual relationship with the ex-partner and instructed defence counsel to reword it to avoid reference to the complainant’s previous relationship. He instructed an open-ended question. With respect to the criminal harassment conviction, the trial judge gave very brief oral reasons convicting the appellant of criminal harassment. The appellant raised two issues on appeal: whether the trial judge improperly restricted cross-examination of the complainant resulting in an unfair trial and whether the reasons for the criminal harassment conviction were sufficient....